In the code below it is not possible to obtain a reference to a trait object from a reference to a dynamically-sized type implementing the same trait. Why is this the case? What exactly is the difference between &dyn Trait and &(?Sized + Trait) if I can use both to call trait methods?
A type implementing FooTraitContainerTrait might e.g. have type Contained = dyn FooTrait or type Contained = T where T is a concrete type that implements FooTrait. In both cases it's trivial to obtain a &dyn FooTrait. I can't think of another case where this wouldn't work. Why isn't this possible in the generic case of FooTraitContainerTrait?
trait FooTrait {
fn foo(&self) -> f64;
}
///
trait FooTraitContainerTrait {
type Contained: ?Sized + FooTrait;
fn get_ref(&self) -> &Self::Contained;
}
///
fn foo_dyn(dyn_some_foo: &dyn FooTrait) -> f64 {
dyn_some_foo.foo()
}
fn foo_generic<T: ?Sized + FooTrait>(some_foo: &T) -> f64 {
some_foo.foo()
}
///
fn foo_on_container<C: FooTraitContainerTrait>(containing_a_foo: &C) -> f64 {
let some_foo = containing_a_foo.get_ref();
// Following line doesn't work:
//foo_dyn(some_foo)
// Following line works:
//some_foo.foo()
// As does this:
foo_generic(some_foo)
}
Uncommenting the foo_dyn(some_foo) line results in the compiler error
error[E0277]: the size for values of type `<C as FooTraitContainerTrait>::Contained` cannot be known at compilation time
--> src/main.rs:27:22
|
27 | foo_dyn(contained)
| ^^^^^^^^^ doesn't have a size known at compile-time
|
= help: the trait `std::marker::Sized` is not implemented for `<C as FooTraitContainerTrait>::Contained`
= note: to learn more, visit <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-04-advanced-types.html#dynamically-sized-types-and-the-sized-trait>
= help: consider adding a `where <C as FooTraitContainerTrait>::Contained: std::marker::Sized` bound
= note: required for the cast to the object type `dyn FooTrait`
This problem can be reduced to the following simple example (thanks to turbulencetoo):
trait Foo {}
fn make_dyn<T: Foo + ?Sized>(arg: &T) -> &dyn Foo {
arg
}
At first glance, it really looks like this should compile, as you observed:
If T is Sized, the compiler knows statically what vtable it should use to create the trait object;
If T is dyn Foo, the vtable pointer is part of the reference and can just be copied to the output.
But there's a third possibility that throws a wrench in the works:
If T is some unsized type that is not dyn Foo, even though the trait is object safe, there is no vtable for impl Foo for T.
The reason there is no vtable is because the vtable for a concrete type assumes that self pointers are thin pointers. When you call a method on a dyn Trait object, the vtable pointer is used to look up a function pointer, and only the data pointer is passed to the function.
However, suppose you implement a(n object-safe) trait for an unsized type:
trait Bar {}
trait Foo {
fn foo(&self);
}
impl Foo for dyn Bar {
fn foo(&self) {/* self is a fat pointer here */}
}
If there were a vtable for this impl, it would have to accept fat pointers, because the impl may use methods of Bar which are dynamically dispatched on self.
This causes two problems:
There's nowhere to store the Bar vtable pointer in a &dyn Foo object, which is only two pointers in size (the data pointer and the Foo vtable pointer).
Even if you had both pointers, you can't mix and match "fat pointer" vtables with "thin pointer" vtables, because they must be called in different ways.
Therefore, even though dyn Bar implements Foo, it is not possible to turn a &dyn Bar into a &dyn Foo.
Although slices (the other kind of unsized type) are not implemented using vtables, pointers to them are still fat, so the same limitation applies to impl Foo for [i32].
In some cases, you can use CoerceUnsized (only on nightly as of Rust 1.36) to express bounds like "must be coercible to &dyn FooTrait". Unfortunately, I don't see how to apply this in your case.
See also
What is a "fat pointer" in Rust?
Use trait object to pass str in rust has a concrete example of a reference to an unsized type (str) that cannot be coerced to a reference to a trait object.
Not sure if that solves your concrete problem, but I did solve mine with the following trick:
I added the following method to FooTrait:
fn as_dyn(&self) -> &dyn FooTrait;
A default impl can not be provided (because it requires that Self be Sized, but constraining FooTrait to be Sized forbids creating trait objects for it...).
However, for all Sized implementations, it is trivially implemented as
fn as_dyn(&self) -> &dyn FooTrait { self }
So basically it constrains all implementations of FooTrait to be sized, except for dyn FooTrait.
Try it on the playground
Referenced from this blog, which explains the fat pointer really well.
Thanks trentcl for simplifying the question to:
trait Foo {}
fn make_dyn<T: Foo + ?Sized>(arg: &T) -> &dyn Foo {
arg
}
This brings to how to cast between different ?Sized?
To answer this, let's first peek the implementation for Unsized type Trait.
trait Bar {
fn bar_method(&self) {
println!("this is bar");
}
}
trait Foo: Bar {
fn foo_method(&self) {
println!("this is foo");
}
}
impl Bar for u8 {}
impl Foo for u8 {}
fn main() {
let x: u8 = 35;
let foo: &dyn Foo = &x;
// can I do
// let bar: &dyn Bar = foo;
}
So, can you do let bar: &dyn Bar = foo;?
// below is all pseudo code
pub struct TraitObjectFoo {
data: *mut (),
vtable_ptr: &VTableFoo,
}
pub struct VTableFoo {
layout: Layout,
// destructor
drop_in_place: unsafe fn(*mut ()),
// methods shown in deterministic order
foo_method: fn(*mut ()),
bar_method: fn(*mut ()),
}
// fields contains Foo and Bar method addresses for u8 implementation
static VTABLE_FOO_FOR_U8: VTableFoo = VTableFoo { ... };
From the pseudo code, we can know
// let foo: &dyn Foo = &x;
let foo = TraitObjectFoo {&x, &VTABLE_FOO_FOR_U8};
// let bar: &dyn Bar = foo;
// C++ syntax for contructor
let bar = TraitObjectBar(TraitObjectFoo {&x, &VTABLE_FOO_FOR_U8});
The bar type is TraitObjectBar, which is not the type TraitObjectFoo. That is to say, you cannot assign a struct of one type to another different type (in rust, in C++ you can use reinterpret_cast).
What you can do it to have another level of indirection:
impl Bar for dyn Foo {
...
}
let bar: &dyn Bar = &foo;
// TraitObjectFoo {&foo, &VTABLE_FOO_FOR_DYN_FOO}
The same thing applies to Slice.
The workaround for casting different Unsized can be done by this trick:
// blanket impl for all sized types, this allows for a very large majority of use-cases
impl<T: Bar> AsBar for T {
fn as_bar(&self) -> &dyn Bar { self }
}
// a helper-trait to do the conversion
trait AsBar {
fn as_bar(&self) -> &dyn Bar;
}
// note that Bar requires `AsBar`, this is what allows you to call `as_bar`
// from a trait object of something that requires `Bar` as a super-trait
trait Bar: AsBar {
fn bar_method(&self) {
println!("this is bar");
}
}
// no change here
trait Foo: Bar {
fn foo_method(&self) {
println!("this is foo");
}
}
Related
I've got this code snippet (playground):
struct TeddyBear {
fluffiness: u8,
}
trait Scruffy {
fn scruff_up(self: &mut Box<Self>) -> Box<dyn Scruffy>;
}
impl Scruffy for TeddyBear {
fn scruff_up(self: &mut Box<Self>) -> Box<dyn Scruffy> {
// do something about the TeddyBear's fluffiness
}
}
It doesn't compile. The error is:
the trait Scruffy cannot be made into an object
, along with the hint:
because method scruff_up's self parameter cannot be dispatched on.
I checked the "E0038" error description, but I haven't been able to figure out which category my error falls into.
I also read the "object-safety" entry in "The Rust Reference", and I believe this matches the "All associated functions must either be dispatchable from a trait object", but I'm not sure, partly because I'm not sure what "receiver" means in that context.
Can you please clarify for me what's the problem with this code and why it doesn't work?
The problem is when you pass it in as a reference, because the inner type may not be well-sized (e.g. a trait object, like if you passed in a Box<Fluffy>) the compiler doesn't have enough information to figure out how to call methods on it. If you restrict it to sized objects (like your TeddyBear) it should compile
trait Scruffy {
fn scruff_up(self: &mut Box<Self>) -> Box<dyn Scruffy> where Self: Sized;
}
A receiver is the self (&self, &mut self, self: &mut Box<Self> and so on).
Note that the list you cited from the reference lists both Box<Self> and &mut Self, but does not list &mut Box<Self> nor it says that combinations of these types are allowed.
This is, indeed, forbidden. As for the why, it is a little more complex.
In order for a type to be a valid receiver, it needs to hold the following condition:
Given any type Self that implements Trait and the receiver type Receiver, the receiver type should implement DispatchFromDyn<dyn Trait> for itself with all Self occurrences of Self replaced with dyn Trait.
For instance:
&self (has the type &Self) has to implement DispatchFromDyn<&dyn Trait>, which it does.
Box<Self> has to implement DispatchFromDyn<Box<dyn Trait>>, which it does.
But in order for &mut Box<Self> to be an object-safe receiver, it would need to impl DispatchFromDyn<&mut Box<dyn Trait>>. What you want is kind of blanket implementation DispatchFromDyn<&mut T> for &mut U where U: DispatchFromDyn<T>.
This impl will never exist. Because it is unsound (even ignoring coherence problems).
As explained in the code in rustc that calculates this:
The only case where the receiver is not dispatchable, but is still a valid receiver type (just not object-safe), is when there is more than one level of pointer indirection. E.g., self: &&Self, self: &Rc<Self>, self: Box<Box<Self>>. In these cases, there is no way, or at least no inexpensive way, to coerce the receiver from the version where Self = dyn Trait to the version where Self = T, where T is the unknown erased type contained by the trait object, because the object that needs to be coerced is behind a pointer.
The problem is inherent to how Rust handles dyn Trait.
dyn Trait is a fat pointer: it is actually two words sized. One is a pointer to the data, and the other is a pointer to the vtable.
When you call a method on dyn Trait, the compiler looks up in the vtable, find the method for the concrete type (which is unknown at compilation time, but known at runtime), and calls it.
This all may be very abstract without an example:
trait Trait {
fn foo(&self);
}
impl Trait for () {
fn foo(&self) {}
}
fn call_foo(v: &dyn Trait) {
v.foo();
}
fn create_dyn_trait(v: &impl Trait) {
let v: &dyn Trait = v;
call_foo(v);
}
The compiler generates code like:
trait Trait {
fn foo(&self);
}
impl Trait for () {
fn foo(&self) {}
}
struct TraitVTable {
foo: fn(*const ()),
}
static TRAIT_FOR_UNIT_VTABLE: TraitVTable = TraitVTable {
foo: unsafe { std::mem::transmute(<() as Trait>::foo) },
};
type DynTraitRef = (*const (), &'static TraitVTable);
impl Trait for dyn Trait {
fn foo(self: DynTraitRef) {
(self.1.foo)(self.0)
}
}
fn call_foo(v: DynTraitRef) {
v.foo();
}
fn create_dyn_trait(v: &impl Trait) {
let v: DynTraitRef = (v as *const (), &TRAIT_FOR_UNIT_VTABLE);
call_foo(v);
}
Now suppose that the pointer to the value is behind an indirection. I'll use Box<&self> because it's simple but demonstrates the concept best, but the concept applies to &mut Box<Self> too: they have the same layout. How will we write foo() for impl Trait for dyn Trait?
trait Trait {
fn foo(self: Box<&Self>);
}
impl Trait for () {
fn foo(self: Box<&Self>) {}
}
struct TraitVTable {
foo: fn(Box<*const ()>),
}
static TRAIT_FOR_UNIT_VTABLE: TraitVTable = TraitVTable {
foo: unsafe { std::mem::transmute(<() as Trait>::foo) },
};
type DynTraitRef = (*const (), &'static TraitVTable);
impl Trait for dyn Trait {
fn foo(self: Box<DynTraitRef>) {
let concrete_foo: fn(Box<*const ()>) = self.1.foo;
let data: *const () = self.0;
concrete_foo(data) // We need to wrap `data` in `Box`! Error.
}
}
You may think "then the compiler should just insert a call to Box::new()!" But besides Box not being the only one here (what with Rc, for example?) and we will need some trait to abstract over this behavior, Rust never performs any hard work implicitly. This is a design choice, and an important one (as opposed to e.g. C++, where an innocent-looking statement like auto v1 = v; can allocate and copy 10GB by a copy constructor). Converting a type to dyn Trait and back is done implicitly: the first one by a coercion, the second one when you call a method of the trait. Thus, the only thing that Rust does for that is attaching a VTable pointer in the first case, or discarding it in the second case. Even allowing only references (&&&Self, no need to call a method, just take the address of a temporary) exceeds that. And it can have severe implications in unexpected places, e.g. register allocation.
So, what to do? You can take &mut self or self: Box<Self>. Which one to choose depends on whether you need ownership (use Box) or not (use a reference). And anyway, &mut Box<Self> is not so useful (its only advantage over &mut T is that you can replace the box and not just its contents, but when you do that that's usually a mistake).
I read this answer but I'm still confused.
How do you interpret impl B for dyn A {}?
trait A {
fn method_a(&self) {
println!("a");
}
}
trait B {
fn method_b(&self) {
println!("b")
}
}
impl B for dyn A {}
impl A for i32 {}
fn main() {
let x: &dyn A = &10;
x.method_b();
}
Playground
I can understand impl A for i32 {} because i32 is a concrete type. dyn A is not a concrete type (unsized, can't pass by value), and you cannot declare a dyn A but you can only declare a &dyn A. Should I interpret
// x.method_b();
(*x).method_b();
as *x is dyn A?
I can also declare impl B for &dyn A {}, so why I need impl B for dyn A {}? What's the use case?
Follow up: If I modify the code
fn main() {
let x: &dyn A = &10;
// have a B trait object over dyn A since
// dyn A implements B
let y: &dyn B = x;
}
It will fail and complain &dyn A is not &dyn B. I understand this is a reasonable complain but I provide the option for compiler to use impl B for dyn A {}. Apparently, the compiler doesn't consider that's an option.
You can't declare dyn A but you can declare &dyn A because dyn A is a trait object type while &dyn A is a pointer to an instance of type T that implements A.
Historically, a trait could be used as a type and a trait. For instance, these both work:
// Where B and A are traits
impl B for A {}
impl B for dyn A {}
Basically, dyn A is just a sugar over A to make it clearer that it is meant to be used as a trait object type. You don't implement a trait for another trait. You implement a trait for another trait object type.
&dyn A is a pointer instance to an instance of type T that implements A and a virtual method table (vtable), which contains all the baggage of methods of A that T implements. This vtable lookup is necessary when an instance of type T later calls A's implementation at runtime.
Therefore, dyn A is an unsized type while &dyn A is a pointer with a known size.
Trait object of type dyn A must be cast from a pointer to be used as a concrete type that implements A. For example, in the code example, i32 can be cast to a dyn A:
impl B for dyn A {}
impl A for i32 {}
fn main() {
let x: i32 = 10;
(&x as &dyn A).method_a();
(&x as &dyn A).method_b();
}
or it can be coerced by a function:
fn dispatch(a: &dyn A) {
a.method_b();
}
Because traits are dynamically sized types (DSTs), to use them as trait objects, we must put them behind some kind of pointer, like &dyn A or Box<dyn A> so it can point to a variable-sized value and access the vtable to call the implemented methods.
See also: What makes something a “trait object”?
I have this trait and simple structure:
use std::path::{Path, PathBuf};
trait Foo {
type Item: AsRef<Path>;
type Iter: Iterator<Item = Self::Item>;
fn get(&self) -> Self::Iter;
}
struct Bar {
v: Vec<PathBuf>,
}
I would like to implement the Foo trait for Bar:
impl Foo for Bar {
type Item = PathBuf;
type Iter = std::slice::Iter<PathBuf>;
fn get(&self) -> Self::Iter {
self.v.iter()
}
}
However I'm getting this error:
error[E0106]: missing lifetime specifier
--> src/main.rs:16:17
|
16 | type Iter = std::slice::Iter<PathBuf>;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected lifetime parameter
I found no way to specify lifetimes inside that associated type. In particular I want to express that the iterator cannot outlive the self lifetime.
How do I have to modify the Foo trait, or the Bar trait implementation, to make this work?
Rust playground
There are a two solutions to your problem. Let's start with the simplest one:
Add a lifetime to your trait
trait Foo<'a> {
type Item: AsRef<Path>;
type Iter: Iterator<Item = Self::Item>;
fn get(&'a self) -> Self::Iter;
}
This requires you to annotate the lifetime everywhere you use the trait. When you implement the trait, you need to do a generic implementation:
impl<'a> Foo<'a> for Bar {
type Item = &'a PathBuf;
type Iter = std::slice::Iter<'a, PathBuf>;
fn get(&'a self) -> Self::Iter {
self.v.iter()
}
}
When you require the trait for a generic argument, you also need to make sure that any references to your trait object have the same lifetime:
fn fooget<'a, T: Foo<'a>>(foo: &'a T) {}
Implement the trait for a reference to your type
Instead of implementing the trait for your type, implement it for a reference to your type. The trait never needs to know anything about lifetimes this way.
The trait function then must take its argument by value. In your case you will implement the trait for a reference:
trait Foo {
type Item: AsRef<Path>;
type Iter: Iterator<Item = Self::Item>;
fn get(self) -> Self::Iter;
}
impl<'a> Foo for &'a Bar {
type Item = &'a PathBuf;
type Iter = std::slice::Iter<'a, PathBuf>;
fn get(self) -> Self::Iter {
self.v.iter()
}
}
Your fooget function now simply becomes
fn fooget<T: Foo>(foo: T) {}
The problem with this is that the fooget function doesn't know T is in reality a &Bar. When you call the get function, you are actually moving out of the foo variable. You don't move out of the object, you just move the reference. If your fooget function tries to call get twice, the function won't compile.
If you want your fooget function to only accept arguments where the Foo trait is implemented for references, you need to explicitly state this bound:
fn fooget_twice<'a, T>(foo: &'a T)
where
&'a T: Foo,
{}
The where clause makes sure that you only call this function for references where Foo was implemented for the reference instead of the type. It may also be implemented for both.
Technically, the compiler could automatically infer the lifetime in fooget_twice so you could write it as
fn fooget_twice<T>(foo: &T)
where
&T: Foo,
{}
but it's not smart enough yet.
For more complicated cases, you can use a Rust feature which is not yet implemented: Generic Associated Types (GATs). Work for that is being tracked in issue 44265.
Use a wrapper type
If the trait and all its implementations are defined in one crate, a helper type can be useful:
trait Foo {
fn get<'a>(&'a self) -> IterableFoo<'a, Self> {
IterableFoo(self)
}
}
struct IterableFoo<'a, T: ?Sized + Foo>(pub &'a T);
For a concrete type that implements Foo, implement the iterator conversion on the IterableFoo wrapping it:
impl Foo for Bar {}
impl<'a> IntoIterator for IterableFoo<'a, Bar> {
type Item = &'a PathBuf;
type IntoIter = std::slice::Iter<'a, PathBuf>;
fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter {
self.0.v.iter()
}
}
This solution does not allow implementations in a different crate. Another disadvantage is that an IntoIterator bound cannot be encoded into the definition of the trait, so it will need to be specified as an additional (and higher-rank) bound for generic code that wants to iterate over the result of Foo::get:
fn use_foo_get<T>(foo: &T)
where
T: Foo,
for<'a> IterableFoo<'a, T>: IntoIterator,
for<'a> <IterableFoo<'a, T> as IntoIterator>::Item: AsRef<Path>
{
for p in foo.get() {
println!("{}", p.as_ref().to_string_lossy());
}
}
Associated type for an internal object providing desired functionality
The trait can define an associated type that gives access to a part of the object that, bound in a reference, provides the necessary access traits.
trait Foo {
type Iterable: ?Sized;
fn get(&self) -> &Self::Iterable;
}
This requires that any implementation type contains a part that can be so exposed:
impl Foo for Bar {
type Iterable = [PathBuf];
fn get(&self) -> &Self::Iterable {
&self.v
}
}
Put bounds on the reference to the associated type in generic code that uses the the result of get:
fn use_foo_get<'a, T>(foo: &'a T)
where
T: Foo,
&'a T::Iterable: IntoIterator,
<&'a T::Iterable as IntoIterator>::Item: AsRef<Path>
{
for p in foo.get() {
println!("{}", p.as_ref().to_string_lossy());
}
}
This solution permits implementations outside of the trait definition crate.
The bound work at generic use sites is as annoying as with the previous solution.
An implementing type may need an internal shell struct with the only purpose of providing the associated type, in case when the use-site bounds are not as readily satisfied as with Vec and IntoIterator in the example discussed.
In future, you'll want an associated type constructor for your lifetime 'a but Rust does not support that yet. See RFC 1598
This used to work:
struct Foo<'a, T> {
parent:&'a (Array<T> + 'a)
}
impl<'a, T> Foo<'a, T> { //'
pub fn new<T>(parent:&Array<T>) -> Foo<T> {
return Foo {
parent: parent
};
}
}
trait Array<T> {
fn as_foo(&self) -> Foo<T> {
return Foo::new(self);
}
}
fn main() {
}
Now it errors:
:15:21: 15:25 error: the trait core::kinds::Sized is not implemented for the type Self
:15 return Foo::new(self);
I can kind of guess what's wrong; it's saying that my impl of Foo<'a, T> is for T, not Sized? T, but I'm not trying to store a Sized? element in it; I'm storing a reference to a Sized element in it. That should be a pointer, fixed size.
I don't see what's wrong with what I'm doing, or why it's wrong?
For example, I should (I think...) be able to store a &Array in my Foo, no problem. I can't see any reason this would force my Foo instance to be unsized.
playpen link: http://is.gd/eZSZYv
There's two things going on here: trait objects coercions (the error), and object safety (fixing it).
The error
As suggested by the error message, the difficult part of the code is the Foo::new(self), and this is because pub fn new<T>(parent: &Array<T>) -> ..., that is, self is being coerced to an &Array<T> trait object. I'll simplify the code to:
trait Array {
fn as_foo(&self) {
let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
}
}
fn main() {}
which gives the same thing:
<anon>:3:13: 3:27 error: the trait `core::kinds::Sized` is not implemented for the type `Self`
<anon>:3 let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Self is the stand-in name for the type that implements the trait. Unlike most generic parameters, Self is possibly-unsized (?Sized) by default, since RFC 546 and #20341 for the purposes of allowing e.g. impl Array<T> for Array<T> to work by default more often (we'll come to this later).
The variable self has type &Self. If Self is a sized type, then this is a normal reference: a single pointer. If Self is an unsized type (like [T] or a trait), then &Self (&[T] or &Trait) is a slice/trait object: a fat pointer.
The error appears because the only references &T that can be cast to a trait object are when T is sized: Rust doesn't support making fat pointers fatter, only thin pointer → fat pointer is valid. Hence, since the compiler doesn't know that Self will always be Sized (remember, it's special and ?Sized by default) it has to assume the worst: that the coercion is not legal, and so it's disallowed.
Fixing it
It seems logical that the fix we're looking for is to ensure that Self: Sized when we want to do a coercion. The obvious way to do this would be to make Self always Sized, that is, override the default ?Sized bound as follows:
trait Array: Sized {
fn as_foo(&self) {
let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
}
}
fn main() {}
Looks good!
Except there's the small point that it doesn't work; but at least it's for a difference reason, we're making progress! Trait objects can only be made out of traits that are "object safe" (i.e. safe to be made into a trait object), and having Sized Self is one of the things that breaks object safety:
<anon>:3:13: 3:17 error: cannot convert to a trait object because trait `Array` is not object-safe [E0038]
<anon>:3 let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
^~~~
<anon>:3:13: 3:17 note: the trait cannot require that `Self : Sized`
<anon>:3 let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
^~~~
<anon>:3:13: 3:17 note: the trait cannot require that `Self : Sized`
<anon>:3 let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
^~~~
(I filed the double printing of the note as #20692.)
Back to the drawing board. There's a few other "easy" possibilities for a solution:
define an extension trait trait ArrayExt: Sized + Array { fn as_foo(&self) { ... } } and implement it for all Sized + Array types
just use a free function fn array_as_foo<A: Array>(x: &A) { ... }
However, these don't necessarily work for every use case, e.g. specific types can't customise the behaviour by overloading the default method. However, fortunately there is a fix!
The Turon Trick
(Named for Aaron Turon, who discovered it.)
Using generalised where clauses we can be highly specific about when Self should implement Sized, restricting it to just the method(s) where it is required, without infecting the rest of the trait:
trait Array {
fn as_foo(&self) where Self: Sized {
let _ = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
}
}
fn main() {}
This compiles just fine! By using the where clause like this, the compiler understands that (a) the coercion is legal because Self is Sized so self is a thin pointer, and (b) that the method is illegal to call on a trait object anyway, and so doesn't break object safety. To see it being disallowed, changing the body of as_foo to
let x = self as &Array; // coerce to a trait object
x.as_foo();
gives
<anon>:4:7: 4:15 error: the trait `core::kinds::Sized` is not implemented for the type `Array`
<anon>:4 x.as_foo();
^~~~~~~~
as expected.
Wrapping it all up
Making this change to the original unsimplified code is as simple adding that where clause to the as_foo method:
struct Foo<'a, T> { //'
parent:&'a (Array<T> + 'a)
}
impl<'a, T> Foo<'a, T> {
pub fn new(parent:&Array<T>) -> Foo<T> {
return Foo {
parent: parent
};
}
}
trait Array<T> {
fn as_foo(&self) -> Foo<T> where Self: Sized {
return Foo::new(self);
}
}
fn main() {
}
which compiles without error. (NB. I had to remove the unnecessary <T> in pub fn new<T> because that was causing inference failures.)
(I have some in-progress blog posts that go into trait objects, object safety and the Turon trick, they will appear on /r/rust in the near future: first one.)
In theory, Dynamically-Sized Types (DST) have landed and we should now be able to use dynamically sized type instances. Practically speaking, I can neither make it work, nor understand the tests around it.
Everything seems to revolve around the Sized? keyword... but how exactly do you use it?
I can put some types together:
// Note that this code example predates Rust 1.0
// and is no longer syntactically valid
trait Foo for Sized? {
fn foo(&self) -> u32;
}
struct Bar;
struct Bar2;
impl Foo for Bar { fn foo(&self) -> u32 { return 9u32; }}
impl Foo for Bar2 { fn foo(&self) -> u32 { return 10u32; }}
struct HasFoo<Sized? X> {
pub f:X
}
...but how do I create an instance of HasFoo, which is DST, to have either a Bar or Bar2?
Attempting to do so always seems to result in:
<anon>:28:17: 30:4 error: trying to initialise a dynamically sized struct
<anon>:28 let has_foo = &HasFoo {
I understand broadly speaking that you can't have a bare dynamically sized type; you can only interface with one through a pointer, but I can't figure out how to do that.
Disclaimer: these are just the results of a few experiments I did, combined with reading Niko Matsakis's blog.
DSTs are types where the size is not necessarily known at compile time.
Before DSTs
A slice like [i32] or a bare trait like IntoIterator were not valid object types because they do not have a known size.
A struct could look like this:
// [i32; 2] is a fixed-sized vector with 2 i32 elements
struct Foo {
f: [i32; 2],
}
or like this:
// & is basically a pointer.
// The compiler always knows the size of a
// pointer on a specific architecture, so whatever
// size the [i32] has, its address (the pointer) is
// a statically-sized type too
struct Foo2<'a> {
f: &'a [i32],
}
but not like this:
// f is (statically) unsized, so Foo is unsized too
struct Foo {
f: [i32],
}
This was true for enums and tuples too.
With DSTs
You can declare a struct (or enum or tuple) like Foo above, containing an unsized type. A type containing an unsized type will be unsized too.
While defining Foo was easy, creating an instance of Foo is still hard and subject to change. Since you can't technically create an unsized type by definition, you have to create a sized counterpart of Foo. For example, Foo { f: [1, 2, 3] }, a Foo<[i32; 3]>, which has a statically known size and code some plumbing to let the compiler know how it can coerce this into its statically unsized counterpart Foo<[i32]>. The way to do this in safe and stable Rust is still being worked on as of Rust 1.5 (here is the RFC for DST coercions for more info).
Luckily, defining a new DST is not something you will be likely to do, unless you are creating a new type of smart pointer (like Rc), which should be a rare enough occurrence.
Imagine Rc is defined like our Foo above. Since it has all the plumbing to do the coercion from sized to unsized, it can be used to do this:
use std::rc::Rc;
trait Foo {
fn foo(&self) {
println!("foo")
}
}
struct Bar;
impl Foo for Bar {}
fn main() {
let data: Rc<Foo> = Rc::new(Bar);
// we're creating a statically typed version of Bar
// and coercing it (the :Rc<Foo> on the left-end side)
// to as unsized bare trait counterpart.
// Rc<Foo> is a trait object, so it has no statically
// known size
data.foo();
}
playground example
?Sized bound
Since you're unlikely to create a new DST, what are DSTs useful for in your everyday Rust coding? Most frequently, they let you write generic code that works both on sized types and on their existing unsized counterparts. Most often these will be Vec/[] slices or String/str.
The way you express this is through the ?Sized "bound". ?Sized is in some ways the opposite of a bound; it actually says that T can be either sized or unsized, so it widens the possible types we can use, instead of restricting them the way bounds typically do.
Contrived example time! Let's say that we have a FooSized struct that just wraps a reference and a simple Print trait that we want to implement for it.
struct FooSized<'a, T>(&'a T)
where
T: 'a;
trait Print {
fn print(&self);
}
We want to define a blanket impl for all the wrapped T's that implement Display.
impl<'a, T> Print for FooSized<'a, T>
where
T: 'a + fmt::Display,
{
fn print(&self) {
println!("{}", self.0)
}
}
Let's try to make it work:
// Does not compile. "hello" is a &'static str, so self print is str
// (which is not sized)
let h_s = FooSized("hello");
h_s.print();
// to make it work we need a &&str or a &String
let s = "hello"; // &'static str
let h_s = &s; // & &str
h_s.print(); // now self is a &str
Eh... this is awkward... Luckily we have a way to generalize the struct to work directly with str (and unsized types in general): ?Sized
//same as before, only added the ?Sized bound
struct Foo<'a, T: ?Sized>(&'a T)
where
T: 'a;
impl<'a, T: ?Sized> Print for Foo<'a, T>
where
T: 'a + fmt::Display,
{
fn print(&self) {
println!("{}", self.0)
}
}
now this works:
let h = Foo("hello");
h.print();
playground
For a less contrived (but simple) actual example, you can look at the Borrow trait in the standard library.
Back to your question
trait Foo for ?Sized {
fn foo(&self) -> i32;
}
the for ?Sized syntax is now obsolete. It used to refer to the type of Self, declaring that `Foo can be implemented by an unsized type, but this is now the default. Any trait can now be implemented for an unsized type, i.e. you can now have:
trait Foo {
fn foo(&self) -> i32;
}
//[i32] is unsized, but the compiler does not complain for this impl
impl Foo for [i32] {
fn foo(&self) -> i32 {
5
}
}
If you don't want your trait to be implementable for unsized types, you can use the Sized bound:
// now the impl Foo for [i32] is illegal
trait Foo: Sized {
fn foo(&self) -> i32;
}
To amend the example that Paolo Falabella has given, here is a different way of looking at it with the use of a property.
struct Foo<'a, T>
where
T: 'a + ?Sized,
{
printable_object: &'a T,
}
impl<'a, T> Print for Foo<'a, T>
where
T: 'a + ?Sized + fmt::Display,
{
fn print(&self) {
println!("{}", self.printable_object);
}
}
fn main() {
let h = Foo {
printable_object: "hello",
};
h.print();
}
At the moment, to create a HasFoo storing a type-erased Foo you need to first create one with a fixed concrete type and then coerce a pointer to it to the DST form, that is
let has_too: &HasFoo<Foo> = &HasFoo { f: Bar };
Calling has_foo.f.foo() then does what you expect.
In future these DST casts will almost certainly be possible with as, but for the moment coercion via an explicit type hint is required.
Here is a complete example based on huon's answer. The important trick is to make the type that you want to contain the DST a generic type where the generic need not be sized (via ?Sized). You can then construct a concrete value using Bar1 or Bar2 and then immediately convert it.
struct HasFoo<F: ?Sized = dyn Foo>(F);
impl HasFoo<dyn Foo> {
fn use_it(&self) {
println!("{}", self.0.foo())
}
}
fn main() {
// Could likewise use `&HasFoo` or `Rc<HasFoo>`, etc.
let ex1: Box<HasFoo> = Box::new(HasFoo(Bar1));
let ex2: Box<HasFoo> = Box::new(HasFoo(Bar2));
ex1.use_it();
ex2.use_it();
}
trait Foo {
fn foo(&self) -> u32;
}
struct Bar1;
impl Foo for Bar1 {
fn foo(&self) -> u32 {
9
}
}
struct Bar2;
impl Foo for Bar2 {
fn foo(&self) -> u32 {
10
}
}