This question is written for Yew v0.19
Asynchronous foreign JavaScript functions can be used in Rust through Closures, as the function to pass-in:
#[wasm_bindgen]
extern "C" {
fn setInterval(closure: &Closure<dyn FnMut()>, time: u32) -> i32;
}
// ...
let cb = Closure::new(|| {
log("interval elapsed!");
});
let interval_id = setInterval(&cb, 1_000);
This is nice for a pedantic examples, but Closures have a critical requirement - the function applied needs to have a 'static lifetime. Likewise, with Yew applications, a perfect mechanism for spontaneous response is the Message enum, and having it update() the Model. However, the link() mechanism in Context (which issues messages) does not have a static lifetime.
In an ideal world, the value submitted to the closure could just be applied as a Yew component message:
struct Model {
thing: Option<JsValue>,
}
enum Msg {
GotThing(JsValue),
}
#[wasm_bindgen]
extern "C" {
fn createThing(closure: &Closure<dyn FnMut(JsValue) -> ());
}
impl Component for Model {
type Message = Msg;
type Properties = ();
fn create(_ctx: &Context<Self>) -> Self {
Model {
thing: None, // initial value
}
}
fn update(&mut self, _ctx: &Context<Self>, msg: Self::Message) -> bool {
match msg {
Msg::GotThing(x) => { // handle the message
self.thing = Some(x);
true
},
}
}
fn rendered(&mut self, ctx: &Context<Self>, first_render: bool) {
if first_render {
let cb: Box<dyn FnMut(JsValue) -> ()> = Box::new(|x| {
// try and issue the message
ctx.link().send_message(Msg::GotThing(x));
// ^ doesn't have a `'static` lifetime! Won't compile
});
createThing(Closure::wrap(&cb));
}
}
// fn view() ... omitted, not relevant
}
I'm wondering if there's a way to convert a Callback into a Closure, or if there's a better, more canonical way to do this, to please correct me.
Another idea I had would use some kind of queue defined statically (which wouldn't be safe as it's a mutable static variable), but then it could be used as an intermediary data type between the Closure passed to createThing, and messages could be dispatched within the component.
Maybe there's an external way to interact with a Yew component that I'm overlooking? I'm not sure how to resolve this issue. What would be the most correct way to achieve this goal?
An enum is clearly a kind of key/value pair structure. Consequently, it would be nice to automatically create a dictionary from one wherein the enum variants become the possible keys and their payload the associated values. Keys without a payload would use the unit value. Here is a possible usage example:
enum PaperType {
PageSize(f32, f32),
Color(String),
Weight(f32),
IsGlossy,
}
let mut dict = make_enum_dictionary!(
PaperType,
allow_duplicates = true,
);
dict.insert(dict.PageSize, (8.5, 11.0));
dict.insert(dict.IsGlossy, ());
dict.insert_def(dict.IsGlossy);
dict.remove_all(dict.PageSize);
Significantly, since an enum is merely a list of values that may optionally carry a payload, auto-magically constructing a dictionary from it presents some semantic issues.
How does a strongly typed Dictionary<K, V> maintain the discriminant/value_type dependency inherent with enums where each discriminant has a specific payload type?
enum Ta {
K1(V1),
K2(V2),
...,
Kn(Vn),
}
How do you conveniently refer to an enum discriminant in code without its payload (Ta.K1?) and what type is it (Ta::Discriminant?) ?
Is the value to be set and get the entire enum value or just the payload?
get(&self, key: Ta::Discriminant) -> Option<Ta>
set(&mut self, value: Ta)
If it were possible to augment an existing enum auto-magically with another enum of of its variants then a reasonably efficient solution seems plausible in the following pseudo code:
type D = add_discriminant_keys!( T );
impl<D> for Vec<D> {
fn get(&self, key: D::Discriminant) -> Option<D> { todo!() }
fn set(&mut self, value: D) { todo!() }
}
I am not aware whether the macro, add_discriminant_keys!, or the construct, D::Discriminant, is even feasible. Unfortunately, I am still splashing in the shallow end of the Rust pool, despite this suggestion. However, the boldness of its macro language suggests many things are possible to those who believe.
Handling of duplicates is an implementation detail.
Enum discriminants are typically functions and therefore have a fixed pointer value (as far as I know). If such values could become constants of an associated type within the enum (like a trait) with attributes similar to what has been realized by strum::EnumDiscriminants things would look good. As it is, EnumDiscriminants seems like a sufficient interim solution.
A generic implementation over HashMap using strum_macros crate is provided based on in the rust playground; however, it is not functional there due to the inability of rust playground to load the strum crate from there. A macro derived solution would be nice.
First, like already said here, the right way to go is a struct with optional values.
However, for completeness sake, I'll show here how you can do that with a proc macro.
When you want to design a macro, especially a complicated one, the first thing to do is to plan what the emitted code will be. So, let's try to write the macro's output for the following reduced enum:
enum PaperType {
PageSize(f32, f32),
IsGlossy,
}
I will already warn you that our macro will not support brace-style enum variants, nor combining enums (your add_discriminant_keys!()). Both are possible to support, but both will complicate this already-complicated answer more. I'll refer to them shortly at the end.
First, let's design the map. It will be in a support crate. Let's call this crate denum (a name will be necessary later, when we'll refer to it from our macro):
pub struct Map<E> {
map: std::collections::HashMap<E, E>, // You can use any map implementation you want.
}
We want to store the discriminant as a key, and the enum as the value. So, we need a way to refer to the free discriminant. So, let's create a trait Enum:
pub trait Enum {
type DiscriminantsEnum: Eq + Hash; // The constraints are those of `HashMap`.
}
Now our map will look like that:
pub struct Map<E: Enum> {
map: std::collections::HashMap<E::DiscriminantsEnum, E>,
}
Our macro will generate the implementation of Enum. Hand-written, it'll be the following (note that in the macro, I wrap it in const _: () = { ... }. This is a technique used to prevent names polluting the global namespaces):
#[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub enum PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum {
PageSize,
IsGlossy,
}
impl Enum for PaperType {
type DiscriminantsEnum = PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum;
}
Next. insert() operation:
impl<E: Enum> Map<E> {
pub fn insert(discriminant: E::DiscriminantsEnum, value: /* What's here? */) {}
}
There is no way in current Rust to refer to an enum discriminant as a distinct type. But there is a way to refer to struct as a distinct type.
We can think about the following:
pub struct PageSize;
But this pollutes the global namespace. Of course, we can call it something like PaperTypePageSize, but I much prefer something like PaperTypeDiscriminants::PageSize.
Modules to the rescue!
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
pub mod PaperTypeDiscriminants {
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
pub struct PageSize;
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
pub struct IsGlossy;
}
Now we need a way in insert() to validate the the provided discriminant indeed matches the wanted enum, and to refer to its value. A new trait!
pub trait EnumDiscriminant: Copy {
type Enum: Enum;
type Value;
fn to_discriminants_enum(self) -> <Self::Enum as Enum>::DiscriminantsEnum;
fn to_enum(self, value: Self::Value) -> Self::Enum;
}
And here's how our macro will implements it:
impl EnumDiscriminant for PaperTypeDiscriminants::PageSize {
type Enum = PaperType;
type Value = (f32, f32);
fn to_discriminants_enum(self) -> PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum { PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum::PageSize }
fn to_enum(self, (v0, v1): Self::Value) -> Self::Enum { Self::Enum::PageSize(v0, v1) }
}
impl EnumDiscriminant for PaperTypeDiscriminants::IsGlossy {
type Enum = PaperType;
type Value = ();
fn to_discriminants_enum(self) -> PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum { PaperTypeDiscriminantsEnum::IsGlossy }
fn to_enum(self, (): Self::Value) -> Self::Enum { Self::Enum::IsGlossy }
}
And now insert():
pub fn insert<D>(&mut self, discriminant: D, value: D::Value)
where
D: EnumDiscriminant<Enum = E>,
{
self.map.insert(
discriminant.to_discriminants_enum(),
discriminant.to_enum(value),
);
}
And trivially insert_def():
pub fn insert_def<D>(&mut self, discriminant: D)
where
D: EnumDiscriminant<Enum = E, Value = ()>,
{
self.insert(discriminant, ());
}
And get() (note: seprately getting the value is possible when removing, by adding a method to the trait EnumDiscriminant with the signature fn enum_to_value(enum_: Self::Enum) -> Self::Value. It can be unsafe fn and use unreachable_unchecked() for better performance. But with get() and get_mut(), that returns reference, it's harder because you can't get a reference to the discriminant value. Here's a playground that does that nonetheless, but requires nightly):
pub fn get_entry<D>(&self, discriminant: D) -> Option<&E>
where
D: EnumDiscriminant<Enum = E>,
{
self.map.get(&discriminant.to_discriminants_enum())
}
get_mut() is very similar.
Note that my code doesn't handle duplicates but instead overwrites them, as it uses HashMap. However, you can easily create your own map that handles duplicates in another way.
Now that we have a clear picture in mind what the macro should generate, let's write it!
I decided to write it as a derive macro. You can use an attribute macro too, and even a function-like macro, but you must call it at the declaration site of your enum - because macros cannot inspect code other than the code the're applied to.
The enum will look like:
#[derive(denum::Enum)]
enum PaperType {
PageSize(f32, f32),
Color(String),
Weight(f32),
IsGlossy,
}
Usually, when my macro needs helper code, I put this code in crate and the macro in crate_macros, and reexports the macro from crate. So, the code in denum (besides the aforementioned Enum, EnumDiscriminant and Map):
pub use denum_macros::Enum;
denum_macros/src/lib.rs:
use proc_macro::TokenStream;
use quote::{format_ident, quote};
#[proc_macro_derive(Enum)]
pub fn derive_enum(item: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
let item = syn::parse_macro_input!(item as syn::DeriveInput);
if item.generics.params.len() != 0 {
return syn::Error::new_spanned(
item.generics,
"`denum::Enum` does not work with generics currently",
)
.into_compile_error()
.into();
}
if item.generics.where_clause.is_some() {
return syn::Error::new_spanned(
item.generics.where_clause,
"`denum::Enum` does not work with `where` clauses currently",
)
.into_compile_error()
.into();
}
let (vis, name, variants) = match item {
syn::DeriveInput {
vis,
ident,
data: syn::Data::Enum(syn::DataEnum { variants, .. }),
..
} => (vis, ident, variants),
_ => {
return syn::Error::new_spanned(item, "`denum::Enum` works only with enums")
.into_compile_error()
.into()
}
};
let discriminants_mod_name = format_ident!("{}Discriminants", name);
let discriminants_enum_name = format_ident!("{}DiscriminantsEnum", name);
let mut discriminants_enum = Vec::new();
let mut discriminant_structs = Vec::new();
let mut enum_discriminant_impls = Vec::new();
for variant in variants {
let variant_name = variant.ident;
discriminant_structs.push(quote! {
#[derive(Clone, Copy)]
pub struct #variant_name;
});
let fields = match variant.fields {
syn::Fields::Named(_) => {
return syn::Error::new_spanned(
variant.fields,
"`denum::Enum` does not work with brace-style variants currently",
)
.into_compile_error()
.into()
}
syn::Fields::Unnamed(fields) => Some(fields.unnamed),
syn::Fields::Unit => None,
};
let value_destructuring = fields
.iter()
.flatten()
.enumerate()
.map(|(index, _)| format_ident!("v{}", index));
let value_destructuring = quote!((#(#value_destructuring,)*));
let value_builder = if fields.is_some() {
value_destructuring.clone()
} else {
quote!()
};
let value_type = fields.into_iter().flatten().map(|field| field.ty);
enum_discriminant_impls.push(quote! {
impl ::denum::EnumDiscriminant for #discriminants_mod_name::#variant_name {
type Enum = #name;
type Value = (#(#value_type,)*);
fn to_discriminants_enum(self) -> #discriminants_enum_name { #discriminants_enum_name::#variant_name }
fn to_enum(self, #value_destructuring: Self::Value) -> Self::Enum { Self::Enum::#variant_name #value_builder }
}
});
discriminants_enum.push(variant_name);
}
quote! {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#vis mod #discriminants_mod_name { #(#discriminant_structs)* }
const _: () = {
#[derive(PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub enum #discriminants_enum_name { #(#discriminants_enum,)* }
impl ::denum::Enum for #name {
type DiscriminantsEnum = #discriminants_enum_name;
}
#(#enum_discriminant_impls)*
};
}
.into()
}
This macro has several flaws: it doesn't handle visibility modifiers and attributes correctly, for example. But in the general case, it works, and you can fine-tune it more.
If you want to also support brace-style variants, you can create a struct with the data (instead of the tuple we use currently).
Combining enum is possible if you'll not use a derive macro but a function-like macro, and invoke it on both enums, like:
denum::enums! {
enum A { ... }
enum B { ... }
}
Then the macro will have to combine the discriminants and use something like Either<A, B> when operating with the map.
Unfortunately, a couple of questions arise in that context:
should it be possible to use enum types only once? Or are there some which might be there multiple times?
what should happen if you insert a PageSize and there's already a PageSize in the dictionary?
All in all, a regular struct PaperType is much more suitable to properly model your domain. If you don't want to deal with Option, you can implement the Default trait to ensure that some sensible defaults are always available.
If you really, really want to go with a collection-style interface, the closest approximation would probably be a HashSet<PaperType>. You could then insert a value PaperType::PageSize.
I have an enum with a String:
enum MyLovelyEnum {
Thing(String),
}
For tests, I would like to be able to pass in a &'static str to avoid MyLovelyEnum::Thing("abc".to_string) over and over.
I found that you can do this nicely with structs with a constructor:
// From: https://hermanradtke.com/2015/05/06/creating-a-rust-function-that-accepts-string-or-str.html
struct Person {
name: String,
}
impl Person {
fn new<S: Into<String>>(name: S) -> Person {
Person { name: name.into() }
}
}
fn main() {
let person = Person::new("Herman");
let person = Person::new("Herman".to_string());
}
I know I can use lifetimes or Cow as described in What's the best practice for str/String values in Rust enums? or I can make my own function.
Is there something close to the example in the blog post for enums? e.g.
// this is the kind of thing I am after but this specifically is not correct syntax
enum MyLovelyEnum {
Thing<S: Into<String>>(S)
}
You can create a generic enum:
enum MyLovelyEnum<S>
where
S: Into<String>,
{
Thing(S),
}
MyLovelyEnum::Thing("a");
MyLovelyEnum::Thing("b".to_string());
I likely wouldn't do that in my code, instead opting to create a constructor, much like the blog post you linked:
enum MyLovelyEnum {
Thing(String),
}
impl MyLovelyEnum {
fn thing(s: impl Into<String>) -> Self {
MyLovelyEnum::Thing(s.into())
}
}
MyLovelyEnum::thing("a");
MyLovelyEnum::thing("b".to_string());
In C++, we can overload operator bool() to convert a struct to bool:
struct Example {
explicit operator bool() const {
return false;
}
};
int main() {
Example a;
if (a) { /* some work */ }
}
Can we do something simple (and elegant) in Rust so to:
pub struct Example {}
fn main() {
let k = Example {};
if k {
// some work
}
}
There's no direct equivalent of operator bool(). A close alternative would be to implement From (which will also implement Into) and call the conversion explicitly:
pub struct Example;
impl From<Example> for bool {
fn from(_other: Example) -> bool {
false
}
}
fn main() {
let k = Example;
if k.into() {
// some work
}
}
This will take ownership of Example, meaning you can't use k after it's been converted. You could implement it for a reference (impl From<&Example> for bool) but then the call site becomes uglier ((&k).into()).
I'd probably avoid using From / Into for this case. Instead, I'd create a predicate method on the type. This will be more readable and can take &self, allowing you to continue using the value.
See also:
When should I implement std::convert::From vs std::convert::Into?
Rust does not have C++'s implicit type conversion via operator overloading. The closest means of implicit conversion is through a Deref impl, which provides a reference of a different type.
What is possible, albeit not necessarily idiomatic, is to implement the not operator ! so that it returns a boolean value, and perform the not operation twice when needed.
use std::ops::Not;
pub struct Example;
impl Not for Example {
type Output = bool;
fn not(self) -> bool { false }
}
fn main() {
let k = Example;
if !!k {
println!("OK!");
} else {
println!("WAT");
}
}
Playground
You have a few options, but I'd go for one of these:
Into<bool> (From<Example>)
If your trait conceptually represents a bool, but maybe with some extra metadata, you can implement From<Example> for bool:
impl From<Example> for bool {
fn from(e: Example) {
// perform the conversion
}
}
Then you can:
fn main() {
let x = Example { /* ... */ };
if x.into() {
// ...
}
}
Custom method
If your type doesn't really represent a boolean value, I'd usually go for an explicit method:
impl Example {
fn has_property() -> bool { /* ... */ }
}
This makes it more obvious what the intent is, for example, if you implemented From<User> for bool:
fn main() {
let user = User { /* ... */ };
if user.into() {
// when does this code get run??
}
// compared to
if user.logged_in() {
// much clearer
}
}
You can implement std::ops::Deref with the bool type. If you do that, you have to call *k to get the boolean.
This is not recommended though, according to the Rust documentation:
On the other hand, the rules regarding Deref and DerefMut were designed specifically to accommodate smart pointers. Because of this, Deref should only be implemented for smart pointers to avoid confusion.
struct Example {}
impl std::ops::Deref for Example {
type Target = bool;
fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
&true
}
}
fn main() {
let k = Example {};
if *k {
// some work
}
}
Playground
I find this is particularly useful pattern to allow method overloading:
struct Foo {
value:uint
}
trait HasUIntValue {
fn as_uint(self) -> uint;
}
impl Foo {
fn add<T:HasUIntValue>(&mut self, value:T) {
self.value += value.as_uint();
}
}
impl HasUIntValue for int {
fn as_uint(self) -> uint {
return self as uint;
}
}
impl HasUIntValue for f64 {
fn as_uint(self) -> uint {
return self as uint;
}
}
#[test]
fn test_add_with_int()
{
let mut x = Foo { value: 10 };
x.add(10i);
assert!(x.value == 20);
}
#[test]
fn test_add_with_float()
{
let mut x = Foo { value: 10 };
x.add(10.0f64);
assert!(x.value == 20);
}
Is there any meaningful downside to doing this?
There is at least one downside: it cannot be an afterthought.
In C++, ad-hoc overloading allows you to overload a function over which you have no control (think 3rd party), whereas in Rust this is not actually doable.
That being said, ad-hoc overloading is mostly useful in C++ because of ad-hoc templates, which is the only place where you cannot know in advance which function the call will ultimately resolve to. In Rust, since templates are bound by traits, the fact that overloading cannot be an afterthought is not an issue since only the traits functions can be called anyway.
No, there is no downside; this is exactly the pattern to implement overloading in Rust.
There are a number of types in the standard library which do exactly this. For example, there is BytesContainer trait in path module, which is implemented for various kinds of strings and vectors.