Is it possible to make a private variable in Rust? - rust

I'm trying to generate prime numbers. The code needs to store all the generated primes (to generate the next), to have some private functions to help and one public function (generate_next_prime).
In Java or C++, I would write a PrimesGen class, but in Rust there can't be private variables in a struct. In Python I would probably write a PrimesGen module, but in Rust modules can't have variables.
This code compiles and runs:
struct PrimesGen {
primes_so_far: Vec<i32>,
next_candidate: i32,
}
impl PrimesGen {
pub fn new() -> PrimesGen {
PrimesGen {
primes_so_far: vec![],
next_candidate: 2,
}
}
}
fn main() {
let pg: PrimesGen = PrimesGen::new();
println!("{}", pg.next_candidate);
}
So what do I do?

In Rust, a file is implicitly a module. When you put some code in a foo.rs file, if you want to use this code, you must type mod foo; because the name of this file is implicitly the name of the module. The file with the main is not an exception: it is one module (the base module).
Now, inside a module, everything has access to everything. See this little example to be convinced:
struct Foo {
x: i32, // private
}
struct Bar {}
impl Bar {
fn foo(f: Foo) {
let _ = f.x;
}
}
fn main() {
let f = Foo { x: 42 };
Bar::foo(f);
}
Bar can access the private members of Foo: in Rust, the visibility works by module, and not struct. Inside a same module you cannot do something private towards the same module.
So, if you want to make the variable private in your example, put your struct and implementation inside a module:
mod prime {
pub struct PrimesGen {
primes_so_far: Vec<i32>,
next_candidate: i32,
}
impl PrimesGen {
pub fn new() -> PrimesGen {
PrimesGen {
primes_so_far: vec![],
next_candidate: 2,
}
}
}
}
fn main() {
use prime::*;
let pg: PrimesGen = PrimesGen::new();
println!("{}", pg.next_candidate); // error: field is private
}

Related

How do I create a long-lived reference into a collection that I know will no longer be modified?

I'm implementing a bytecode VM and am struggling referencing data stored in a parsed representation of the bytecode. As is the nature of (most) bytecode, it and thus its parsed representation remain unmodified once it's initialized. A separate Vm contains the mutable parts (stack etc.) along with that module. I made an MCVE with additional explanatory comments to illustrate the problem; it's at the bottom and on the playground. The parsed bytecode may look like this:
Module { struct_types: {"Bar": StructType::Named(["a", "b"])} }
The strings "Bar", "a", "b" are references into the bytecode and have lifetime 'b, so we also have lifetimes in the types Module<'b> and StructType<'b>.
After creating this, I will want to create struct instances, think let bar = Bar { a: (), b: () };. At least currently, each struct instance needs to hold a reference to its type, so that type might look like this:
pub struct Struct<'b> {
struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType<'b>,
fields: Vec<Value<'b>>,
}
The values of a struct's fields may be constants whose value is stored in the bytecode, so the Value enum has a lifetime 'b as well, and that works. The problem is that I have a &'b bytecode::StructType<'b> in the first field: how do I get a reference that lives long enough? I think the reference would actually be valid long enough.
The part of the code that I suspect to be the critical one is here:
pub fn struct_type(&self, _name: &str) -> Option<&'b StructType<'b>> {
// self.struct_types.get(name)
todo!("fix lifetime problems")
}
With the commented out code, I can't get a 'b reference because the reference self.struct_types lives too short; to fix that I'd need to do &'b self which would spread virally through the code; also, most of the times I need to borrow the Vm mutably, which doesn't work if all those exclusive self references have to live long.
Introducing a separate lifetime 'm so that I could return a &'m StructType<'b> sounds like something that I could try as well, but that sounds just as viral and in addition introduces a separate lifetime I need to keep track of; being able to replace 'b with 'm (or at least only having on in each place) would be a bit nicer.
Finally this feels like something that pinning could be helpful with, but I don't understand that topic enough to make an educated guess on how that could be approached.
MCVE
#![allow(dead_code)]
mod bytecode {
use std::collections::BTreeMap;
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum StructType<'b> {
/// unit struct type; doesn't have fields
Empty,
/// tuple struct type; fields are positional
Positional(usize),
/// "normal" struct type; fields are named
Named(Vec<&'b str>),
}
impl<'b> StructType<'b> {
pub fn field_count(&self) -> usize {
match self {
Self::Empty => 0,
Self::Positional(field_count) => *field_count,
Self::Named(fields) => fields.len(),
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Module<'b> {
struct_types: BTreeMap<&'b str, StructType<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Module<'b> {
// here is the problem: I would like to return a reference with lifetime 'b.
// from the point I start executing instructions, I know that I won't modify
// the module (particularly, I won't add entries to the map), so I think that
// lifetime should be possible - pinning? `&'b self` everywhere? idk
pub fn struct_type(&self, _name: &str) -> Option<&'b StructType<'b>> {
// self.struct_types.get(name)
todo!("fix lifetime problems")
}
}
pub fn parse<'b>(bytecode: &'b str) -> Module<'b> {
// this would use nom to parse actual bytecode
assert_eq!(bytecode, "struct Bar { a, b }");
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
let a = &bytecode[13..14];
let b = &bytecode[16..17];
let fields = vec![a, b];
let bar_struct = StructType::Named(fields);
let struct_types = BTreeMap::from_iter([
(bar, bar_struct),
]);
Module { struct_types }
}
}
mod vm {
use crate::bytecode::{self, StructType};
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub enum Value<'b> {
Unit,
Struct(Struct<'b>),
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Struct<'b> {
struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType<'b>,
fields: Vec<Value<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Struct<'b> {
pub fn new(struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType<'b>, fields: Vec<Value<'b>>) -> Self {
Struct { struct_type, fields }
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Vm<'b> {
module: bytecode::Module<'b>,
}
impl<'b> Vm<'b> {
pub fn new(module: bytecode::Module<'b>) -> Self {
Self { module }
}
pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &'b str) -> Value<'b> {
let struct_type: &'b StructType<'b> = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
// just initialize the fields to something, we don't care
let fields = vec![Value::Unit; struct_type.field_count()];
let value = Value::Struct(Struct::new(struct_type, fields));
value
}
}
}
pub fn main() {
// the bytecode contains all constants needed at runtime;
// we're just interested in how struct types are handled
// obviously the real bytecode is not as human-readable
let bytecode = "struct Bar { a, b }";
// we parse that into a module that, among other things,
// has a map of all struct types
let module = bytecode::parse(bytecode);
println!("{:?}", module);
// we create a Vm that is capable of running commands
// that are stored in the module
let mut vm = vm::Vm::new(module);
// now we try to execute an instruction to create a struct value
// the instruction for this contains a reference to the type name
// stored in the bytecode.
// the struct value contains a reference to its type and holds its field values.
let value = {
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
vm.create_struct(bar)
};
println!("{:?}", value);
}
&'b bytecode::StructType<'b> is a classic anti-pattern in Rust, it strongly indicates incorrectly annotated lifetimes. It doesn't make sense that an object would depend on some lifetime and borrowing it creates the same lifetime. That is very rare to happen on purpose.
So I suspect you need two lifetimes, which I will call 'm and 'b:
'b: the lifetime of the bytecode string, everything that references it will use &'b str.
'm: the lifetime of the Module object. Everything that references it or its contained StructType will use this lifetime.
If split into two lifetimes and adjusted correctly, it simply works:
#![allow(dead_code)]
mod bytecode {
use std::{collections::BTreeMap, iter::FromIterator};
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum StructType<'b> {
/// unit struct type; doesn't have fields
Empty,
/// tuple struct type; fields are positional
Positional(usize),
/// "normal" struct type; fields are named
Named(Vec<&'b str>),
}
impl<'b> StructType<'b> {
pub fn field_count(&self) -> usize {
match self {
Self::Empty => 0,
Self::Positional(field_count) => *field_count,
Self::Named(fields) => fields.len(),
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Module<'b> {
struct_types: BTreeMap<&'b str, StructType<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Module<'b> {
// here is the problem: I would like to return a reference with lifetime 'b.
// from the point I start executing instructions, I know that I won't modify
// the module (particularly, I won't add entries to the map), so I think that
// lifetime should be possible - pinning? `&'b self` everywhere? idk
pub fn struct_type(&self, name: &str) -> Option<&StructType<'b>> {
self.struct_types.get(name)
}
}
pub fn parse<'b>(bytecode: &'b str) -> Module<'b> {
// this would use nom to parse actual bytecode
assert_eq!(bytecode, "struct Bar { a, b }");
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
let a = &bytecode[13..14];
let b = &bytecode[16..17];
let fields = vec![a, b];
let bar_struct = StructType::Named(fields);
let struct_types = BTreeMap::from_iter([(bar, bar_struct)]);
Module { struct_types }
}
}
mod vm {
use crate::bytecode::{self, StructType};
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub enum Value<'b, 'm> {
Unit,
Struct(Struct<'b, 'm>),
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Struct<'b, 'm> {
struct_type: &'m bytecode::StructType<'b>,
fields: Vec<Value<'b, 'm>>,
}
impl<'b, 'm> Struct<'b, 'm> {
pub fn new(struct_type: &'m bytecode::StructType<'b>, fields: Vec<Value<'b, 'm>>) -> Self {
Struct {
struct_type,
fields,
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Vm<'b> {
module: bytecode::Module<'b>,
}
impl<'b> Vm<'b> {
pub fn new(module: bytecode::Module<'b>) -> Self {
Self { module }
}
pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &str) -> Value<'b, '_> {
let struct_type: &StructType<'b> = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
// just initialize the fields to something, we don't care
let fields = vec![Value::Unit; struct_type.field_count()];
let value = Value::Struct(Struct::new(struct_type, fields));
value
}
}
}
pub fn main() {
// the bytecode contains all constants needed at runtime;
// we're just interested in how struct types are handled
// obviously the real bytecode is not as human-readable
let bytecode = "struct Bar { a, b }";
// we parse that into a module that, among other things,
// has a map of all struct types
let module = bytecode::parse(bytecode);
println!("{:?}", module);
// we create a Vm that is capable of running commands
// that are stored in the module
let mut vm = vm::Vm::new(module);
// now we try to execute an instruction to create a struct value
// the instruction for this contains a reference to the type name
// stored in the bytecode.
// the struct value contains a reference to its type and holds its field values.
let value = {
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
vm.create_struct(bar)
};
println!("{:?}", value);
}
Module { struct_types: {"Bar": Named(["a", "b"])} }
Struct(Struct { struct_type: Named(["a", "b"]), fields: [Unit, Unit] })
It can further be simplified, however, due to the fact that 'm is connected to 'b, and therefore everything that depends on 'm automatically also has access to 'b objects, because 'b is guaranteed to outlive 'm.
Therefore, let's introduce 'a, which we will now use inside of the vm mod to reference anything from the bytecode mod. This will further allow lifetime elysion to happen at a couple of points, simplifying the code even further:
#![allow(dead_code)]
mod bytecode {
use std::{collections::BTreeMap, iter::FromIterator};
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum StructType<'b> {
/// unit struct type; doesn't have fields
Empty,
/// tuple struct type; fields are positional
Positional(usize),
/// "normal" struct type; fields are named
Named(Vec<&'b str>),
}
impl<'b> StructType<'b> {
pub fn field_count(&self) -> usize {
match self {
Self::Empty => 0,
Self::Positional(field_count) => *field_count,
Self::Named(fields) => fields.len(),
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Module<'b> {
struct_types: BTreeMap<&'b str, StructType<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Module<'b> {
// here is the problem: I would like to return a reference with lifetime 'b.
// from the point I start executing instructions, I know that I won't modify
// the module (particularly, I won't add entries to the map), so I think that
// lifetime should be possible - pinning? `&'b self` everywhere? idk
pub fn struct_type(&self, name: &str) -> Option<&StructType<'b>> {
self.struct_types.get(name)
}
}
pub fn parse<'b>(bytecode: &'b str) -> Module<'b> {
// this would use nom to parse actual bytecode
assert_eq!(bytecode, "struct Bar { a, b }");
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
let a = &bytecode[13..14];
let b = &bytecode[16..17];
let fields = vec![a, b];
let bar_struct = StructType::Named(fields);
let struct_types = BTreeMap::from_iter([(bar, bar_struct)]);
Module { struct_types }
}
}
mod vm {
use crate::bytecode::{self, StructType};
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub enum Value<'a> {
Unit,
Struct(Struct<'a>),
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Struct<'a> {
struct_type: &'a bytecode::StructType<'a>,
fields: Vec<Value<'a>>,
}
impl<'a> Struct<'a> {
pub fn new(struct_type: &'a bytecode::StructType, fields: Vec<Value<'a>>) -> Self {
Struct {
struct_type,
fields,
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Vm<'a> {
module: bytecode::Module<'a>,
}
impl<'a> Vm<'a> {
pub fn new(module: bytecode::Module<'a>) -> Self {
Self { module }
}
pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &str) -> Value {
let struct_type: &StructType = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
// just initialize the fields to something, we don't care
let fields = vec![Value::Unit; struct_type.field_count()];
let value = Value::Struct(Struct::new(struct_type, fields));
value
}
}
}
pub fn main() {
// the bytecode contains all constants needed at runtime;
// we're just interested in how struct types are handled
// obviously the real bytecode is not as human-readable
let bytecode = "struct Bar { a, b }";
// we parse that into a module that, among other things,
// has a map of all struct types
let module = bytecode::parse(bytecode);
println!("{:?}", module);
// we create a Vm that is capable of running commands
// that are stored in the module
let mut vm = vm::Vm::new(module);
// now we try to execute an instruction to create a struct value
// the instruction for this contains a reference to the type name
// stored in the bytecode.
// the struct value contains a reference to its type and holds its field values.
let value = {
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
vm.create_struct(bar)
};
println!("{:?}", value);
}
Module { struct_types: {"Bar": Named(["a", "b"])} }
Struct(Struct { struct_type: Named(["a", "b"]), fields: [Unit, Unit] })
Fun fact: This is now one of the rare cases where we legitimately have to use &'a bytecode::StructType<'a>, so take my opening statement with a grain of salt, and you were kind of right all along :)
The crazy thing is if we then rename 'a to 'b to be consistent with your original code, we get almost your code with only some minor differences:
#![allow(dead_code)]
mod bytecode {
use std::{collections::BTreeMap, iter::FromIterator};
#[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
pub enum StructType<'b> {
/// unit struct type; doesn't have fields
Empty,
/// tuple struct type; fields are positional
Positional(usize),
/// "normal" struct type; fields are named
Named(Vec<&'b str>),
}
impl<'b> StructType<'b> {
pub fn field_count(&self) -> usize {
match self {
Self::Empty => 0,
Self::Positional(field_count) => *field_count,
Self::Named(fields) => fields.len(),
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Module<'b> {
struct_types: BTreeMap<&'b str, StructType<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Module<'b> {
// here is the problem: I would like to return a reference with lifetime 'b.
// from the point I start executing instructions, I know that I won't modify
// the module (particularly, I won't add entries to the map), so I think that
// lifetime should be possible - pinning? `&'b self` everywhere? idk
pub fn struct_type(&self, name: &str) -> Option<&StructType<'b>> {
self.struct_types.get(name)
}
}
pub fn parse<'b>(bytecode: &'b str) -> Module<'b> {
// this would use nom to parse actual bytecode
assert_eq!(bytecode, "struct Bar { a, b }");
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
let a = &bytecode[13..14];
let b = &bytecode[16..17];
let fields = vec![a, b];
let bar_struct = StructType::Named(fields);
let struct_types = BTreeMap::from_iter([(bar, bar_struct)]);
Module { struct_types }
}
}
mod vm {
use crate::bytecode::{self, StructType};
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub enum Value<'b> {
Unit,
Struct(Struct<'b>),
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Struct<'b> {
struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType<'b>,
fields: Vec<Value<'b>>,
}
impl<'b> Struct<'b> {
pub fn new(struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType, fields: Vec<Value<'b>>) -> Self {
Struct {
struct_type,
fields,
}
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone)]
pub struct Vm<'b> {
module: bytecode::Module<'b>,
}
impl<'b> Vm<'b> {
pub fn new(module: bytecode::Module<'b>) -> Self {
Self { module }
}
pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &str) -> Value {
let struct_type: &StructType = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
// just initialize the fields to something, we don't care
let fields = vec![Value::Unit; struct_type.field_count()];
let value = Value::Struct(Struct::new(struct_type, fields));
value
}
}
}
pub fn main() {
// the bytecode contains all constants needed at runtime;
// we're just interested in how struct types are handled
// obviously the real bytecode is not as human-readable
let bytecode = "struct Bar { a, b }";
// we parse that into a module that, among other things,
// has a map of all struct types
let module = bytecode::parse(bytecode);
println!("{:?}", module);
// we create a Vm that is capable of running commands
// that are stored in the module
let mut vm = vm::Vm::new(module);
// now we try to execute an instruction to create a struct value
// the instruction for this contains a reference to the type name
// stored in the bytecode.
// the struct value contains a reference to its type and holds its field values.
let value = {
let bar = &bytecode[7..10];
vm.create_struct(bar)
};
println!("{:?}", value);
}
Module { struct_types: {"Bar": Named(["a", "b"])} }
Struct(Struct { struct_type: Named(["a", "b"]), fields: [Unit, Unit] })
So the actual fix for your original code is as follows:
4c4
< use std::collections::BTreeMap;
---
> use std::{collections::BTreeMap, iter::FromIterator};
36,38c36,37
< pub fn struct_type(&self, _name: &str) -> Option<&'b StructType<'b>> {
< // self.struct_types.get(name)
< todo!("fix lifetime problems")
---
> pub fn struct_type(&self, name: &str) -> Option<&StructType<'b>> {
> self.struct_types.get(name)
73c72
< pub fn new(struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType<'b>, fields: Vec<Value<'b>>) -> Self {
---
> pub fn new(struct_type: &'b bytecode::StructType, fields: Vec<Value<'b>>) -> Self {
91,92c90,91
< pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &'b str) -> Value<'b> {
< let struct_type: &'b StructType<'b> = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
---
> pub fn create_struct(&mut self, type_name: &str) -> Value {
> let struct_type: &StructType = self.module.struct_type(type_name).unwrap();
I hope deriving them step by step made it somewhat clear why those changes are necessary.

Why can I write Guess{value:1000} when value is private?

I have a code like this from the offical tutorial book Chapter 9.3
#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
pub struct Guess {
value: i32,
}
impl Guess {
pub fn new(value: i32) -> Guess {
if value < 1 || value > 100 {
panic!("Guess value must be between 1 and 100, got {}.", value);
}
Guess { value }
}
pub fn value(&self) -> i32 {
self.value
}
}
let g = Guess{
value:1000
};
println!("{}", g.value);
}
According to the book I should not be able to create a Guess using the let g = Guess {} However, this code does not cause any error and prints 1000
There is still a problem even if I put the struct and impl outside the main func like this and delete the pub keyword.
struct Guess {}
impl Guess {}
fn main() {}
According to the book I should not be able to create a Guess using the let g = Guess {}
It is unlikely that the book states that.
Rust visibility works in terms of modules, anything in a module can see all the contents of their parents regardless of their pub status; the reverse is not true.
Since main and Guess.value are in the same module, there is no barrier. Moving Guess out of main doesn't change that, they're still in the same module. For visibility to become an issue, Guess needs to be moved into a separate non-ancestor module (e.g. a sub-module, or a sibling).
Example:
pub struct Foo(usize);
pub mod x {
pub struct Bar(usize);
impl Bar {
pub fn get(&self) -> usize { self.0 }
}
pub fn make(n: super::Foo) -> Bar {
// can access Foo's fields because this is a
// descendant module, so it is "part of" the
// same module
Bar(n.0)
}
}
pub fn qux(n: x::Bar) -> Foo {
// Can't access Bar's field because it's not exposed to this module
// Foo(n.0)
Foo(n.get())
}

'use' keyword not working (calling from sibling file)

I'm trying to use a struct from a value.rs file from chunk.rs, but it is not working. This is my current file hierarchy.
src
|
|---value.rs
|---chunk.rs
|---other files
Here is my value.rs code:
pub enum Value {
}
pub struct ValueArray {
values: Vec<Value>,
}
pub impl Value {
pub fn new() -> Value {
Value {
values: Vec::new(),
}
}
pub fn write_chunk(&mut self, value: Value) {
self.code.push(value);
}
}
Here is my chunk.rs code:
use crate::value::ValueArray; // Error Here
pub enum OpCode {
OpReturn,
}
pub struct Chunk {
pub code: Vec<OpCode>,
constants: value::ValueArray,
}
impl Chunk {
pub fn new() -> Chunk {
Chunk {
code: Vec::new(),
constants: value::ValueArray::new(),
}
}
pub fn write_chunk(&mut self, byte: OpCode) {
self.code.push(byte);
}
}
This is my exact error message:
unresolved import `crate::value`
could not find `value` in the crate rootrustc(E0432)
chunk.rs(1, 12): could not find `value` in the crate root
I'm not sure why it isn't working since I've done something very similar in another sibling file. I'm new to Rust, so I appreciate all of your help. Thanks
You need to define the value module on the lib.rs file
pub mod value;
The syntax I'm using to include a file ("lib.rs") with naked structs/functions (no explicit module defined) is:
mod lib;
use crate::lib::*;
So you must be missing mod value;.

Accessing private fields from different modules

mod root {
mod foo {
pub struct Foo {
i: i32,
}
}
mod bar {
pub struct Bar {
f: ::root::foo::Foo,
}
impl Bar {
pub fn new(i: i32) -> Self {
Bar { f: ::root::foo::Foo { i: i } }
}
}
}
}
fn main() {}
playground
The user should be able to interact with Foo, but the user should not be able to construct it manually because it is unsafe.
The module bar should still be able to construct Foo. As far as I know the only way to do this is to put Foo inside the root module or inside the bar module.
Is there a cleaner way to solve this problem? I named the modules here foo and bar but in my code they are separate files like foo.rs bar.rs. Is possible to put foo.rs bar.rs into the same module so that they can see the private fields but still be live in separate files?
My current workaround was to expose a public unsafe new method for Foo.
I think I found a better workaround
pub mod root {
use self::foo::create_foo;
mod foo {
pub struct Foo {
i: i32,
}
impl Foo{
pub fn hello_foo(&self){
println!("Hello foo");
}
}
pub fn create_foo(i: i32) -> Foo{
Foo { i: i }
}
}
pub mod bar {
pub struct Bar {
pub f: ::root::foo::Foo,
}
impl Bar {
pub fn new(i: i32) -> Self {
Bar { f: ::root::foo::create_foo(i) }
}
}
}
}
fn main() {
//still private
//let f = root::foo::create_foo(42);
let b = root::bar::Bar::new(42);
b.f.hello_foo();
}
playground
I expose a public constructor create_foo in foo but the module foo still remains private and I only expose create_foo in root which means that bar can now create a Foo but create_foo is still private outside of root.

How do I declare a "static" field in a struct in Rust?

How do I declare a "static" field in a struct in Rust, preferably with a default value:
struct MyStruct {
x: i32, // instance
y: i32, // instance
my_static: i32 = 123, // static, how?
}
fn main() {
let a = get_value();
if a == MyStruct::my_static {
//...
} else {
//...
}
}
You can declare an associated constant in an impl:
struct MyStruct {
x: i32,
y: i32,
}
impl MyStruct {
const MY_STATIC: i32 = 123;
}
fn main() {
println!("MyStruct::MY_STATIC = {}", MyStruct::MY_STATIC);
}
Rust does not support static fields in structures, so you can't do that. The closest thing you can get is an associated method:
struct MyStruct {
x: i32,
y: i32,
}
impl MyStruct {
#[inline]
pub fn my_static() -> i32 {
123
}
}
fn main() {
let a = get_value();
if a == MyStruct::my_static() {
//...
} else {
//...
}
}
You can't declare a field static in a struct.
You can declare a static variable at module scope like this :
static FOO: int = 42;
And you can't have a static variable mutable without unsafe code : to follow borrowing rules it would have to be wrapped in a container making runtime borrowing checks and being Sync, like Mutex or RWLock, but these cannot be stored in static variable as they have non-trivial constructors.

Resources