I have this code:
let fd = libc::creat(path, FILE_MODE);
if fd < 0 {
/* error */
}
the equivalent in C is shorter:
if ((fd = creat(path, FILE_MODE)) < 0) {
/* error */
}
can I do a similar thing in Rust? I tried to map it to if let but it looks like handling Options.
No, it's not possible by design. let bindings are one of the two non-expression statements in Rust. That means that the binding does not return any value that could be used further.
Bindings as expressions don't make a whole lot of sense in Rust in general. Consider let s = String::new(): this expression can't return String, because s owns the string. Or what about let (x, _) = get_tuple()? Would the expression return the whole tuple or just the not-ignored elements? So ⇒ let bindings aren't expressions.
About the if let: Sadly that won't work either. It just enables us to test if a destructuring works or to put it in other words: destructure a refutable pattern. This doesn't only work with Option<T>, but with all types.
If you really want to shorten this code, there is a way: make c_int easily convertible into a more idiomatic type, like Result. This is best done via extension trait:
trait LibcIntExt {
fn to_res(self) -> Result<u32, u32>;
}
impl LibcIntExt for c_int {
fn to_res(self) -> Result<u32, u32> {
if self < 0 {
Err(-self as u32)
} else {
Ok(self as u32)
}
}
}
With this you can use if let in the resulting Result:
if let Err(fd) = libc::creat(path, FILE_MODE).to_res() {
/* error */
}
Related
I was wondering if it was possible to return different types depending on the conditions in the function:
This code will work if you remove '|| bool' and the 'if/else' statements.
Thanks in advance.
fn main() {
let vector: Vec<i32> = vec![0, 2, 5, 8, 9];
let targetL i32 = 3;
let found_item = linear_search(vector, target);
println!("{}", &found_item);
}
fn linear_search(vector: Vec<i32>, target: i32) -> i32 || bool {
let mut found: i32 = 0;
for item in vector {
if item == target {
found = item;
break
}
}
if found == 0 {
false
} else {
found
}
}
The precise type must be known at compile time (and is subsequently erased). You cannot decide arbitrarily which types to return at runtime.
However, you can do you've tried to do, by wrapping the types into a generic enum (which replaces the || in your code):
enum TypeOr<S, T> {
Left(S),
Right(T),
}
fn linear_search(vector: ...) -> TypeOr<i32, bool> { //...
The downside is that you must unwrap the value from the enum before you can do anything else with the result. However, this isn't so arduous in practice.
This is essentially a generalised version of the commonly used Option and Result types.
Edit: In fact, in your case, you are served very nicely by the semantics of the Option type: you never return true, so you may equate the None result with the false result your function returns, and this captures the idea you're trying to express: either your linear search finds the target and returns it (Some(found)), or it does not, and has nothing to return (None).
I can't figure out how to do import- and instancing-lines such that they tolerate non-existing files/modules and structs.
I tried making a macro that unwraps into such lines based on what files it finds in the directory, using a crate I found that had promise - include_optional - which allows to check for existence of files already at compile-time (since it's a macro).
However, I can't figure out how to use it properly in a macro, neither did I manage to use it without macro using the example at bottom of the docs conditional compilation chapter.
if cfg!(unix) { "unix" } else if cfg!(windows) { "windows" } else { "unknown" } (from the docs)
vs
if include_optional::include_bytes_optional!("day1.rs").is_some() { Some(&day01::Day01 {}) } else { None } // assume day1.rs and thus Day01 are non-existent (my attempt at doing same thing)
My if-statement compiles both cases, including the unreachable code (causing a compilation error), despite how according to the the docs it supposedly doesn't for cfg! ("conditional compilation").
Essentially, what I want is something of this form:
// Macro to generate code based on how many files/structs has been created
// There are anywhere between 1-25 days
get_days_created!;
/* // Let's assume 11 have been created so far, then the macro should evaluate to this code:
* mod day1;
* use day1 as day0#;
* // ...
* mod day11;
* use day11 as day11;
*
* // ...
* fn main() -> Result<(), i32> {
* let days : Vec<&dyn Day> = vec![
* &day01::Day01 {},
* // ...
* &day11::Day11 {},
* ];
* // ...
* }
*/
The solution is to create a proc_macro. These function similar to regular macros except they allow you to write a function of actual code they should execute, instead being given (and returning) a 'TokenStream' to parse the given tokens (and, respectively, what tokens the macro should expand to).
To create a proc_macro, the first and most important piece of information you need to know is that you can't do this anywhere. Instead, you need to create a new library, and in its Cargo.toml file you need to set proc-macro = true. Then you can declare them in its lib.rs. An example TOML would look something like this:
[package]
name = "some_proc_macro_lib"
version = "0.1.0"
edition = "2021"
[lib]
proc-macro = true
[dependencies]
glob = "0.3.0"
regex = "1.7.0"
Then you can create your macros in this library as regular functions, with the #[proc_macro] attribute/annotation. Here's an example lib.rs with as few dependencies as possible. For my exact question, the input TokenStream is irrelevant and can be ignored, and instead you want to generate and return a new one:
use proc_macro::TokenStream;
use glob::glob;
use regex::Regex;
#[proc_macro]
pub fn import_days(_: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
let mut stream = TokenStream::new();
let re = Regex::new(r".+(\d+)").unwrap();
for entry in glob("./src/day*.rs").expect("Failed to read pattern") {
if let Ok(path) = entry {
let prefix = path.file_stem().unwrap().to_str().unwrap();
let caps = re.captures(prefix);
if let Some(caps) = caps {
let n: u32 = caps.get(1).unwrap().as_str().parse().unwrap();
let day = &format!("{}", prefix);
let day_padded = &format!("day{:0>2}", n);
stream.extend(format!("mod {};", day).parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap());
if n < 10 {
stream.extend(format!("use {} as {};", day, day_padded).parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap());
}
}
}
}
return proc_macro::TokenStream::from(stream);
}
The question could be considered answered with this already, but the answer can and should be further expanded on in my opinion. And as such I will do so.
Some additional explanations and suggestions, beyond the scope of the question
There are however quite a few other crates beside proc_macro that can aid you with both parsing the input stream, and building the output one. Of note are the dependencies syn and quote, and to aid them both there's the crate proc_macro2.
The syn crate
With syn you get helpful types, methods and macros for parsing the input Tokenstream. Essentially, with a struct Foo implementing syn::parse::Parse and the macro let foo = syn::parse_macro_input!(input as Foo) you can much more easily parse it into a custom struct thanks to syn::parse::ParseStream. An example would be something like this:
use proc_macro2::Ident;
use syn;
use syn::parse::{Parse, ParseStream};
#[derive(Debug, Default)]
struct Foo {
idents: Vec<Ident>,
}
impl syn::parse::Parse for Foo {
fn parse(input: syn::parse::ParseStream) -> syn::Result<Self> {
let mut foo= Foo::default();
while !input.is_empty() {
let fn_ident = input.parse::<Ident>()?;
foo.idents.push(fn_ident);
// Optional comma: Ok vs Err doesn't matter. Just consume if it exists and ignore failures.
input.parse::<syn::token::Comma>().ok();
}
return Ok(foo);
}
}
Note that the syn::Result return-type allows for nice propagation of parsing-errors when using the sugary ? syntax: input.parse::<SomeType>()?
The quote crate
With quote you get a helpful macro for generating a tokenstream more akin to how macro_rules does it. As an argument you write essentially regular code, and tell it to use the value of variables by prefixing with #.
Do note that you can't just pass it variables containing strings and expect it to expand into identifiers, as strings resolve to the value "foo" (quotes included). ie. mod "day1"; instead of mod day1;. You need to turn them into either:
a proce_macro2::Ident
syn::Ident::new(foo_str, proc_macro2::Span::call_site())
or a proc_macro2::TokenStream
foo_str.parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap()
The latter also allows to convert longer strings with more than a single Ident, and manages things such as literals etc., making it possible to skip the quote! macro entirely and just use this tokenstream directly (as seen in import_days).
Here's an example that creates a struct with dynamic name, and implements a specific trait for it:
use proc_macro2::TokenStream;
use quote::quote;
// ...
let mut stream = TokenStream::new();
stream.extend(quote!{
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct #day_padded_upper {}
impl Day for #day_padded_upper {
#trait_parts
}
});
return proc_macro::TokenStream::from(stream);
Finally, on how to implement my question
This 'chapter' is a bit redundant, as I essentially answered it with the first two code-snippets (.toml and fn import_days), and the rest could have been considered an exercise for the reader. However, while the question is about reading the filesystem at compile-time in a macro to 'dynamically' change its expansion (sort of), I wrote it in a more general form asking how to achieve a specific result (as old me didn't know macro's could do that). So for completion I'll include this 'chapter' nevertheless.
There is also the fact that the last macro in this 'chapter' - impl_day (which wasn't mentioned at all in the question) - serves as a good example of how to achieve two adjacent but important and relevant tasks.
Retrieving and using call-site's filename.
Parsing the input TokenStream using the syn dependency as shown above.
In other words: knowing all the above, this is how you can create macros for importing all targeted files, instantiating structs for all targeted files, as well as to declare + define the struct from current file's name.
Importing all targeted files:
See import_days above at the start.
Instantiating Vec with structs from all targeted files:
#[proc_macro]
pub fn instantiate_days(_: proc_macro::TokenStream) -> proc_macro::TokenStream {
let re = Regex::new(r".+(\d+)").unwrap();
let mut stream = TokenStream::new();
let mut block = TokenStream::new();
for entry in glob("./src/day*.rs").expect("Failed to read pattern") {
match entry {
Ok(path) => {
let prefix = path.file_stem().unwrap().to_str().unwrap();
let caps = re.captures(prefix);
if let Some(caps) = caps {
let n: u32 = caps.get(1).unwrap().as_str().parse().unwrap();
let day_padded = &format!("day{:0>2}", n);
let day_padded_upper = &format!("Day{:0>2}", n);
let instance = &format!("&{}::{} {{}}", day_padded, day_padded_upper).parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap();
block.extend(quote!{
v.push( #instance );
});
}
},
Err(e) => println!("{:?}", e),
}
}
stream.extend(quote!{
{
let mut v: Vec<&dyn Day> = Vec::new();
#block
v
}
});
return proc_macro::TokenStream::from(stream);
}
Declaring and defining struct for current file invoking this macro:
#[derive(Debug, Default)]
struct DayParser {
parts: Vec<Ident>,
}
impl Parse for DayParser {
fn parse(input: ParseStream) -> syn::Result<Self> {
let mut day_parser = DayParser::default();
while !input.is_empty() {
let fn_ident = input.parse::<Ident>()?;
// Optional, Ok vs Err doesn't matter. Just consume if it exists.
input.parse::<syn::token::Comma>().ok();
day_parser.parts.push(fn_ident);
}
return Ok(day_parser);
}
}
#[proc_macro]
pub fn impl_day(input: proc_macro::TokenStream) -> proc_macro::TokenStream {
let mut stream = TokenStream::new();
let span = Span::call_site();
let binding = span.source_file().path();
let file = binding.to_str().unwrap();
let re = Regex::new(r".*day(\d+).rs").unwrap();
let caps = re.captures(file);
if let Some(caps) = caps {
let n: u32 = caps.get(1).unwrap().as_str().parse().unwrap();
let day_padded_upper = format!("Day{:0>2}", n).parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap();
let day_parser = syn::parse_macro_input!(input as DayParser);
let mut trait_parts = TokenStream::new();
for (k, fn_ident) in day_parser.parts.into_iter().enumerate() {
let k = k+1;
let trait_part_ident = format!("part_{}", k).parse::<TokenStream>().unwrap();
// let trait_part_ident = proc_macro::Ident::new(format!("part_{}", k).as_str(), span);
trait_parts.extend(quote!{
fn #trait_part_ident(&self, input: &str) -> Result<String, ()> {
return Ok(format!("Part {}: {:?}", #k, #fn_ident(input)));
}
});
}
stream.extend(quote!{
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct #day_padded_upper {}
impl Day for #day_padded_upper {
#trait_parts
}
});
} else {
// don't generate anything
let str = format!("Tried to implement Day for a file with malformed name: file = \"{}\" , re = \"{:?}\"", file, re);
println!("{}", str);
// compile_error!(str); // can't figure out how to use these
}
return proc_macro::TokenStream::from(stream);
}
This is a very simple example, but how would I do something similar to:
let fact = |x: u32| {
match x {
0 => 1,
_ => x * fact(x - 1),
}
};
I know that this specific example can be easily done with iteration, but I'm wondering if it's possible to make a recursive function in Rust for more complicated things (such as traversing trees) or if I'm required to use my own stack instead.
There are a few ways to do this.
You can put closures into a struct and pass this struct to the closure. You can even define structs inline in a function:
fn main() {
struct Fact<'s> { f: &'s dyn Fn(&Fact, u32) -> u32 }
let fact = Fact {
f: &|fact, x| if x == 0 {1} else {x * (fact.f)(fact, x - 1)}
};
println!("{}", (fact.f)(&fact, 5));
}
This gets around the problem of having an infinite type (a function that takes itself as an argument) and the problem that fact isn't yet defined inside the closure itself when one writes let fact = |x| {...} and so one can't refer to it there.
Another option is to just write a recursive function as a fn item, which can also be defined inline in a function:
fn main() {
fn fact(x: u32) -> u32 { if x == 0 {1} else {x * fact(x - 1)} }
println!("{}", fact(5));
}
This works fine if you don't need to capture anything from the environment.
One more option is to use the fn item solution but explicitly pass the args/environment you want.
fn main() {
struct FactEnv { base_case: u32 }
fn fact(env: &FactEnv, x: u32) -> u32 {
if x == 0 {env.base_case} else {x * fact(env, x - 1)}
}
let env = FactEnv { base_case: 1 };
println!("{}", fact(&env, 5));
}
All of these work with Rust 1.17 and have probably worked since version 0.6. The fn's defined inside fns are no different to those defined at the top level, except they are only accessible within the fn they are defined inside.
As of Rust 1.62 (July 2022), there's still no direct way to recurse in a closure. As the other answers have pointed out, you need at least a bit of indirection, like passing the closure to itself as an argument, or moving it into a cell after creating it. These things can work, but in my opinion they're kind of gross, and they're definitely hard for Rust beginners to follow. If you want to use recursion but you have to have a closure, for example because you need something that implements FnOnce() to use with thread::spawn, then I think the cleanest approach is to use a regular fn function for the recursive part and to wrap it in a non-recursive closure that captures the environment. Here's an example:
let x = 5;
let fact = || {
fn helper(arg: u64) -> u64 {
match arg {
0 => 1,
_ => arg * helper(arg - 1),
}
}
helper(x)
};
assert_eq!(120, fact());
Here's a really ugly and verbose solution I came up with:
use std::{
cell::RefCell,
rc::{Rc, Weak},
};
fn main() {
let weak_holder: Rc<RefCell<Weak<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32>>> =
Rc::new(RefCell::new(Weak::<fn(u32) -> u32>::new()));
let weak_holder2 = weak_holder.clone();
let fact: Rc<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32> = Rc::new(move |x| {
let fact = weak_holder2.borrow().upgrade().unwrap();
if x == 0 {
1
} else {
x * fact(x - 1)
}
});
weak_holder.replace(Rc::downgrade(&fact));
println!("{}", fact(5)); // prints "120"
println!("{}", fact(6)); // prints "720"
}
The advantages of this are that you call the function with the expected signature (no extra arguments needed), it's a closure that can capture variables (by move), it doesn't require defining any new structs, and the closure can be returned from the function or otherwise stored in a place that outlives the scope where it was created (as an Rc<Fn...>) and it still works.
Closure is just a struct with additional contexts. Therefore, you can do this to achieve recursion (suppose you want to do factorial with recursive mutable sum):
#[derive(Default)]
struct Fact {
ans: i32,
}
impl Fact {
fn call(&mut self, n: i32) -> i32 {
if n == 0 {
self.ans = 1;
return 1;
}
self.call(n - 1);
self.ans *= n;
self.ans
}
}
To use this struct, just:
let mut fact = Fact::default();
let ans = fact.call(5);
In rust, the following function is legal:
fn unwrap<T>(s:Option<T>) -> T {
s.unwrap()
}
It takes ownership of s, panics if it is a None, and returns ownership of the contents of s (which is legal since an Option owns its contents).
I was trying to write a similar function with signature
fn unwrap_set<T>(s: BTreeSet<T>) -> T {
...
}
The idea is that it panics unless s has size 1, in which case it returns the single element. It seems like this should be possible for the same reason unwrap is possible, however none of the methods on BTreeSet had the right signature (they would need to have return type T). The closest was take, and I tried to do
let mut s2 = s;
let v: &T = s2.iter().next().unwrap();
s2.take(v).unwrap()
but this failed.
Is writing a function like unwrap_set possible?
The easiest way to do this would be to use BTreeSet<T>'s implementation of IntoIterator, which would allow you to easily pull owned values out of the set one at a time:
fn unwrap_set<T>(s: BTreeSet<T>) -> T {
let mut it = s.into_iter();
if let Some(first) = it.next() {
if let None = it.next() {
return first;
}
}
panic!("set must have a single value");
}
If you wanted to indirectly rely on IntoIterator you could also use a normal loop, but I don't think it's as readable that way so I probably wouldn't do this:
fn unwrap_set<T>(s: BTreeSet<T>) -> T {
let mut result = None;
for item in s {
// If there is a second value, bail out
if let Some(_) = result {
result = None;
break;
}
result = Some(item);
}
return result.expect("set must have a single value");
}
I have nested structures of enums, ie. enum X has a variant which contains enum Y etc. Is there any way to access fields eg x.y.z with a runtime error if x.y.z doesn't exist (eg, x is of wrong variant). Furthermore is this a reasonably moral thing to do, or is there a better alternative, without match statements everywhere? Efficiency is not so important, though it would be good to make it as cheap as possible.
It is not possible to access nested enums with dots syntax, but you can use if let:
pub enum X {
A(Y),
B(Z)
}
pub enum Y {
C,
D(u32)
}
pub enum Z {
E
}
fn main() {
let x = X::A(Y::D(12));
if let X::A(Y::D(n)) = x {
println!("Got it: {}", n);
} else {
println!("Nope");
}
}
(try it here)
if let makes the code arguably more concise than match. Naturally, this is as efficient as match.
Given these definitions:
enum X {
Variant(Y),
…
}
enum Y {
Variant(Z),
…
}
struct Z;
You can use if let with deep patterns as one way:
if let X::Variant(Y::Variant(ref z) = x {
// Use z
} else { // And these two lines are,
panic!(); // of course, optional.
}
Or you could define methods (panicking is not a good idea, though; having such methods return Option is much more common, as is shown in rustc_serialize’s Json enum, for example), but it will still leave you with comparatively ugly code, probably):
impl X {
fn y(&self) -> &Y {
match *self {
Variant(ref y) => y,
_ => panic!(),
}
}
}
// Ditto for Y.z()
let z = x.y().z();