How do I get over something like this:
struct Test {
foo: Option<fn()>
}
impl Test {
fn new(&mut self) {
self.foo = Option::Some(self.a);
}
fn a(&self) { /* can use Test */ }
}
I get this error:
error: attempted to take value of method `a` on type `&mut Test`
--> src/main.rs:7:36
|
7 | self.foo = Option::Some(self.a);
| ^
|
= help: maybe a `()` to call it is missing? If not, try an anonymous function
How do I pass a function pointer from a trait? Similar to what would happen in this case:
impl Test {
fn new(&mut self) {
self.foo = Option::Some(a);
}
}
fn a() { /* can't use Test */ }
What you're trying to do here is get a function pointer from a (to use Python terminology here, since Rust doesn't have a word for this) bound method. You can't.
Firstly, because Rust doesn't have a concept of "bound" methods; that is, you can't refer to a method with the invocant (the thing on the left of the .) already bound in place. If you want to construct a callable which approximates this, you'd use a closure; i.e. || self.a().
However, this still wouldn't work because closures aren't function pointers. There is no "base type" for callable things like in some other languages. Function pointers are a single, specific kind of callable; closures are completely different. Instead, there are traits which (when implemented) make a type callable. They are Fn, FnMut, and FnOnce. Because they are traits, you can't use them as types, and must instead use them from behind some layer of indirection, such as Box<FnOnce()> or &mut FnMut(i32) -> String.
Now, you could change Test to store an Option<Box<Fn()>> instead, but that still wouldn't help. That's because of the other, other problem: you're trying to store a reference to the struct inside of itself. This is not going to work well. If you manage to do this, you effectively render the Test value permanently unusable. More likely is that the compiler just won't let you get that far.
Aside: you can do it, but not without resorting to reference counting and dynamic borrow checking, which is out of scope here.
So the answer to your question as-asked is: you don't.
Let's change the question: instead of trying to crowbar a self-referential closure in, we can instead store a callable that doesn't attempt to capture the invocant at all.
struct Test {
foo: Option<Box<Fn(&Test)>>,
}
impl Test {
fn new() -> Test {
Test {
foo: Option::Some(Box::new(Self::a)),
}
}
fn a(&self) { /* can use Test */ }
fn invoke(&self) {
if let Some(f) = self.foo.as_ref() {
f(self);
}
}
}
fn main() {
let t = Test::new();
t.invoke();
}
The callable being stored is now a function that takes the invocant explicitly, side-stepping the issues with cyclic references. We can use this to store Test::a directly, by referring to it as a free function. Also note that because Test is the implementation type, I can also refer to it as Self.
Aside: I've also corrected your Test::new function. Rust doesn't have constructors, just functions that return values like any other.
If you're confident you will never want to store a closure in foo, you can replace Box<Fn(&Test)> with fn(&Test) instead. This limits you to function pointers, but avoids the extra allocation.
If you haven't already, I strongly urge you to read the Rust Book.
There are few mistakes with your code. new function (by the convention) should not take self reference, since it is expected to create Self type.
But the real issue is, Test::foo expecting a function type fn(), but Test::a's type is fn(&Test) == fn a(&self) if you change the type of foo to fn(&Test) it will work. Also you need to use function name with the trait name instead of self. Instead of assigning to self.a you should assign Test::a.
Here is the working version:
extern crate chrono;
struct Test {
foo: Option<fn(&Test)>
}
impl Test {
fn new() -> Test {
Test {
foo: Some(Test::a)
}
}
fn a(&self) {
println!("a run!");
}
}
fn main() {
let test = Test::new();
test.foo.unwrap()(&test);
}
Also if you gonna assign a field in new() function, and the value must always set, then there is no need to use Option instead it can be like that:
extern crate chrono;
struct Test {
foo: fn(&Test)
}
impl Test {
fn new() -> Test {
Test {
foo: Test::a
}
}
fn a(&self) {
println!("a run!");
}
}
fn main() {
let test = Test::new();
(test.foo)(&test); // Make sure the paranthesis are there
}
Related
Rust normally has strict privacy laws, you can't return a private type from a public function.
However, it seems like you are able to return a type created in a closure from that closure. But why? Why are you allowed to return a private struct from a closure?
fn main () {
let closure = || {
struct Sample;
Sample
};
}
Because you can still do things with it. The structure isn't sealed inside the closure, it just so happens that we can't use the name Sample directly outside of the closure. But we can still access its methods. Consider
fn main () {
let closure = || {
struct Sample;
impl Sample {
fn say_hello(&self) {
println!("Hello, world! :)");
}
}
Sample
};
let s = closure();
s.say_hello();
}
The main function still knows that s has type Sample, and we can still call inherent methods like say_hello on it. The fact that you, as the programmer, can't say the name of the structure, is irrelevant.
Just to make it perfectly clear, based on feedback in the comments. Local structures and fn functions in Rust (i.e. structures and functions written inside other functions) are not actually local. They're internally hoisted to the enclosing module from a visibility standpoint. A function can't own a structure, only a module can. You can't reference the name Sample in the module scope, but that's where it's being hoisted to internally. If it helps, you can think of it as though Sample is being lifted to a top-level struct __mangledname_internal_Sample at the top of your file. It's still there, just not with a name that you can access.
Here's what's roughly being generated per your rust code:
struct Closure {
s : Sample
}
impl FnOnce<()> for Closure {
type Output = Sample;
fn call_once(self) -> Self::Output {
self.s
}
}
The information regarding defining the struct and the impl blocks are hoisted to the module level when inside of a closure. So this block below will be accessible at the module level:
struct Sample;
impl Sample {
fn say_hello(&self) {
println!("Hello, world! :)");
}
}
Therefore, nothing actually breaks the privacy rules as the Closure struct simply uses the Sample type defined at the module level
In your current code, you haven't yet actually done anything with the closure. Try this one:
fn main () {
let closure = some_stuff::public_function();
}
mod some_stuff {
pub fn public_function () -> impl FnOnce() -> PrivateStruct {
let closure = || {
struct PrivateStruct;
PrivateStruct
};
return closure
}
}
And you'll get
Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error[E0412]: cannot find type `PrivateStruct` in this scope
--> src/lib.rs:6:51
|
6 | pub fn public_function () -> impl FnOnce() -> PrivateStruct {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not found in this scope
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0412`.
error: could not compile `playground` due to previous error
I am trying to simplify my closures, but I had a problem converting my closure to a reference to an associated function when the parameter is owned by the closure but the inner function call only expects a reference.
#![deny(clippy::pedantic)]
fn main() {
let borrowed_structs = vec![BorrowedStruct, BorrowedStruct];
//Selected into_iter specifically to reproduce the minimal scenario that closure gets value instead of reference
borrowed_structs
.into_iter()
.for_each(|consumed_struct: BorrowedStruct| MyStruct::my_method(&consumed_struct));
// I want to write it with static method reference like following line:
// for_each(MyStruct::my_method);
}
struct MyStruct;
struct BorrowedStruct;
impl MyStruct {
fn my_method(prm: &BorrowedStruct) {
prm.say_hello();
}
}
impl BorrowedStruct {
fn say_hello(&self) {
println!("hello");
}
}
Playground
Is it possible to simplify this code:
into_iter().for_each(|consumed_struct: BorrowedStruct| MyStruct::my_method(&consumed_struct));
To the following:
into_iter().for_each(MyStruct::my_method)
Note that into_iter here is only to reproduce to scenario that I own the value in my closure. I know that iter can be used in such scenario but it is not the real scenario that I am working on.
The answer to your general question is no. Types must match exactly when passing a function as a closure argument.
There are one-off workarounds, as shown in rodrigo's answer, but the general solution is to simply take the reference yourself, as you've done:
something_taking_a_closure(|owned_value| some_function_or_method(&owned_value))
I actually advocated for this case about two years ago as part of ergonomics revamp, but no one else seemed interested.
In your specific case, you can remove the type from the closure argument to make it more succinct:
.for_each(|consumed_struct| MyStruct::my_method(&consumed_struct))
I don't think there is a for_each_ref in trait Iterator yet. But you can write your own quite easily (playground):
trait MyIterator {
fn for_each_ref<F>(self, mut f: F)
where
Self: Iterator + Sized,
F: FnMut(&Self::Item),
{
self.for_each(|x| f(&x));
}
}
impl<I: Iterator> MyIterator for I {}
borrowed_structs
.into_iter()
.for_each_ref(MyStruct::my_method);
Another option, if you are able to change the prototype of the my_method function you can make it accept the value either by value or by reference with borrow:
impl MyStruct {
fn my_method(prm: impl Borrow<BorrowedStruct>) {
let prm = prm.borrow();
prm.say_hello();
}
}
And then your original code with .for_each(MyStruct::my_method) just works.
A third option is to use a generic wrapper function (playground):
fn bind_by_ref<T>(mut f: impl FnMut(&T)) -> impl FnMut(T) {
move |x| f(&x)
}
And then call the wrapped function with .for_each(bind_by_ref(MyStruct::my_method));.
When writing callbacks for generic interfaces, it can be useful for them to define their own local data which they are responsible for creating and accessing.
In C I would just use a void pointer, C-like example:
struct SomeTool {
int type;
void *custom_data;
};
void invoke(SomeTool *tool) {
StructOnlyForThisTool *data = malloc(sizeof(*data));
/* ... fill in the data ... */
tool.custom_data = custom_data;
}
void execute(SomeTool *tool) {
StructOnlyForThisTool *data = tool.custom_data;
if (data.foo_bar) { /* do something */ }
}
When writing something similar in Rust, replacing void * with Option<Box<Any>>, however I'm finding that accessing the data is unreasonably verbose, eg:
struct SomeTool {
type: i32,
custom_data: Option<Box<Any>>,
};
fn invoke(tool: &mut SomeTool) {
let data = StructOnlyForThisTool { /* my custom data */ }
/* ... fill in the data ... */
tool.custom_data = Some(Box::new(custom_data));
}
fn execute(tool: &mut SomeTool) {
let data = tool.custom_data.as_ref().unwrap().downcast_ref::<StructOnlyForThisTool>().unwrap();
if data.foo_bar { /* do something */ }
}
There is one line here which I'd like to be able to write in a more compact way:
tool.custom_data.as_ref().unwrap().downcast_ref::<StructOnlyForThisTool>().unwrap()
tool.custom_data.as_ref().unwrap().downcast_mut::<StructOnlyForThisTool>().unwrap()
While each method makes sense on its own, in practice it's not something I'd want to write throughout a code-base, and not something I'm going to want to type out often or remember easily.
By convention, the uses of unwrap here aren't dangerous because:
While only some tools define custom data, the ones that do always define it.
When the data is set, by convention the tool only ever sets its own data. So there is no chance of having the wrong data.
Any time these conventions aren't followed, its a bug and should panic.
Given these conventions, and assuming accessing custom-data from a tool is something that's done often - what would be a good way to simplify this expression?
Some possible options:
Remove the Option, just use Box<Any> with Box::new(()) representing None so access can be simplified a little.
Use a macro or function to hide verbosity - passing in the Option<Box<Any>>: will work of course, but prefer not - would use as a last resort.
Add a trait to Option<Box<Any>> which exposes a method such as tool.custom_data.unwrap_box::<StructOnlyForThisTool>() with matching unwrap_box_mut.
Update 1): since asking this question a point I didn't include seems relevant.
There may be multiple callback functions like execute which must all be able to access the custom_data. At the time I didn't think this was important to point out.
Update 2): Wrapping this in a function which takes tool isn't practical, since the borrow checker then prevents further access to members of tool until the cast variable goes out of scope, I found the only reliable way to do this was to write a macro.
If the implementation really only has a single method with a name like execute, that is a strong indication to consider using a closure to capture the implementation data. SomeTool can incorporate an arbitrary callable in a type-erased manner using a boxed FnMut, as shown in this answer. execute() then boils down to invoking the closure stored in the struct field implementation closure using (self.impl_)(). For a more general approach, that will also work when you have more methods on the implementation, read on.
An idiomatic and type-safe equivalent of the type+dataptr C pattern is to store the implementation type and pointer to data together as a trait object. The SomeTool struct can contain a single field, a boxed SomeToolImpl trait object, where the trait specifies tool-specific methods such as execute. This has the following characteristics:
You no longer need an explicit type field because the run-time type information is incorporated in the trait object.
Each tool's implementation of the trait methods can access its own data in a type-safe manner without casts or unwraps. This is because the trait object's vtable automatically invokes the correct function for the correct trait implementation, and it is a compile-time error to try to invoke a different one.
The "fat pointer" representation of the trait object has the same performance characteristics as the type+dataptr pair - for example, the size of SomeTool will be two pointers, and accessing the implementation data will still involve a single pointer dereference.
Here is an example implementation:
struct SomeTool {
impl_: Box<SomeToolImpl>,
}
impl SomeTool {
fn execute(&mut self) {
self.impl_.execute();
}
}
trait SomeToolImpl {
fn execute(&mut self);
}
struct SpecificTool1 {
foo_bar: bool
}
impl SpecificTool1 {
pub fn new(foo_bar: bool) -> SomeTool {
let my_data = SpecificTool1 { foo_bar: foo_bar };
SomeTool { impl_: Box::new(my_data) }
}
}
impl SomeToolImpl for SpecificTool1 {
fn execute(&mut self) {
println!("I am {}", self.foo_bar);
}
}
struct SpecificTool2 {
num: u64
}
impl SpecificTool2 {
pub fn new(num: u64) -> SomeTool {
let my_data = SpecificTool2 { num: num };
SomeTool { impl_: Box::new(my_data) }
}
}
impl SomeToolImpl for SpecificTool2 {
fn execute(&mut self) {
println!("I am {}", self.num);
}
}
pub fn main() {
let mut tool1: SomeTool = SpecificTool1::new(true);
let mut tool2: SomeTool = SpecificTool2::new(42);
tool1.execute();
tool2.execute();
}
Note that, in this design, it doesn't make sense to make implementation an Option because we always associate the tool type with the implementation. While it is perfectly valid to have an implementation without data, it must always have a type associated with it.
I'm trying to select a function to call depending on a condition. I want to store that function in a variable so that I can call it again later without carrying the condition around. Here's a working minimal example:
fn foo() {
println! ("Foo");
}
fn bar() {
println! ("Bar");
}
fn main() {
let selector = 0;
let foo: &Fn() = &foo;
let bar: &Fn() = &bar;
let test = match selector {
0 => foo,
_ => bar
};
test();
}
My question is: is it possible to get rid of the intermediate variables? I've tried simply removing them:
fn foo() {
println! ("Foo");
}
fn bar() {
println! ("Bar");
}
fn main() {
let selector = 0;
let test = match selector {
0 => &foo as &Fn(),
_ => &bar as &Fn()
};
test();
}
but then the borrow checker complains that the borrowed values are only valid until the end of the match (btw, why? the functions are 'static anyway so should be valid to the end of times). I've also tried making the 'static lifetime explicit by using &foo as &'static Fn() but that doesn't work either.
The following works, if you only need to work with static functions and not closures:
fn foo() {
println!("Foo");
}
fn bar() {
println!("Bar");
}
fn main() {
let selector = 0;
let test: fn() = match selector {
0 => foo,
_ => bar
};
test();
}
(try on playground)
Here I've used function type instead of function trait.
The reason that the borrowed trait object doesn't work is probably the following. Any trait object is a fat pointer which consists of a pointer to some value and a pointer to a virtual table. When the trait object is created out of a closure, everything is clear - the value would be represented by the closure itself (internally being an instance of a structure containing all captured variables) and the virtual table would contain a pointer to the implementation of the corresponding Fn*() trait generated by the compiler whose body would be the closure body.
With functions, however, things are not so clear. There are no value to create a trait object from because the function itself should correspond to the implementation of Fn() trait. Therefore, rustc probably generates an empty structure and implements Fn() for it, and this implementation calls the static function directly (not actual Rust, but something close):
struct SomeGeneratedStructFoo;
impl Fn<()> for SomeGeneratedStructFoo {
type Output = ();
fn call(&self, args: ()) -> () {
foo();
}
}
Therefore, when a trait object is created out of fn foo(), a reference is taken in fact to a temporary value of type SomeGeneratedStructFoo. However, this value is created inside the match, and only a reference to it is returned from the match, thus this value does not live long enough, and that's what the error is about.
fn() is a function pointer type. It's already a pointer type. You can check this with std::mem::size_of::<fn()>(). It is not a zero-sized type.
When you do &foo, you take a pointer to a stack allocated pointer. This inner pointer does not survive very long, causing the error.
You can cast these to the generic fn() type as suggested. I would be interested in knowing why you can't cast fn() to &Fn(), though.
So I have a trait that I want to pass around and do some dynamic method dispatching on. I have one method that needs the trait as a boxed pointer, but it needs to call another method that uses a reference to the trait. So something like:
trait Foo {
fn do_something(&self);
}
struct Bar;
impl Foo for Bar {
fn do_something(&self) {}
}
fn foo_as_box(foo : Box<Foo>) {
foo_as_ref(&foo);
}
fn foo_as_ref(foo : &Foo) {
foo.do_something();
}
fn main() {
let boxed_foo = box Bar as Box<Foo>;
foo_as_box(boxed_foo);
}
But, I get an error on this code
error: failed to find an implementation of trait Foo for Box Foo<no-bounds>
The compiler will convert Box<Foo> into &Foo as needed automatically. You can just say
foo_as_ref(foo);
and it will work.
This doesn't necessarily work in more complex situations. Which is to say, the compiler can't always tell that you want that conversion.
Now that DST has been implemented, you can say &*foo to do the conversion.
In the past the only way to force it was a let-binding, as in
let ref_foo: &Foo = foo;
Of course, your use-case is simple enough that you don't need this.