Related
I have an enum which is defined as follows:
enum MyEnum {
X(u32),
Y(Vec<MyEnum>),
Z(Vec<MyEnum>),
}
As you can see, the enum is nested and can have other enums of its type inside of it. I'm trying to perform a simple check: I want to check if any of the u32s is greater than 5.
I have thought about using recursion here as this seems like an inherently recursive problem but from my searches it was clear that rust doesn't support recursion or that it is not recommended that it is used. How would I go about solving this problem and performing the check?
You can make a method over your Enum, and recursively call it:
enum MyEnum {
X(u32),
Y(Vec<MyEnum>),
Z(Vec<MyEnum>),
}
impl MyEnum {
fn greater_than(&self, x: u32) -> bool {
match self {
Self::X(v) => v > &x,
Self::Y(v) | Self::Z(v) => v.iter().any(|y| y.greater_than(x)),
}
}
}
Playground
It is perfectly ok to use recursion in Rust, there is no particular problem about it.
In your case, you could write your check like this:
fn my_check(en: &MyEnum) -> bool {
match en {
MyEnum::X(n) => *n > 5,
MyEnum::Y(v) | MyEnum::Z(v) => v.iter().any(my_check),
}
}
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'm attempting to create a struct that holds a collection of Nodes. In order to limit the type, each of these Nodes can hold the value is of the enum type NodeVal.
I can then add accessor functions to the Container struct to get and set the values. However, rather than adding a get_node_f64, get_node_i64, etc, I'm attempting to make a generic function that accepts a type that implements the Num trait.
This does not work seemingly because the val property of Node is NodeVal rather than T. However if I make it T it will be able to be any type, which I want to avoid.
Is there any way to achieve what I want to do or am I structuring this the wrong way?
use std::collections::HashMap;
use num_traits::Num;
pub enum NodeVal {
Str(String),
F64(f64),
Uint64(u64),
Int64(i64),
}
pub struct Node {
id: i32,
val: NodeVal
}
pub struct Container {
nodes: HashMap<i32, Node>
}
impl Container {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Container {
nodes: HashMap::new()
}
}
pub fn get_node_str(&self, key: &i32) -> Option<String> {
match self.nodes.get(key) {
Some(r) => match &r.val {
NodeVal::Str(x) => Some(x.to_string()),
_ => None
},
None => None
}
}
// Does not compile
pub fn get_node_num<T: num_traits::Num>(&self, key: &i32) -> Option<T> {
match self.nodes.get(key) {
Some(r) => match &r.val {
NodeVal::F64(x) | NodeVal::Uint64(x) | NodeVal::Int64(x) => Some(*x),
_ => None
},
None => None
}
}
}
This does not work seemingly because the val property of Node is NodeVal rather than T. However if I make it T it will be able to be any type, which I want to avoid.
What I get is that it doesn't work because x is of a different type in the three variants you're matching, which doesn't make any sense to Rust, it complains that the x in F64 is an f64, the x in Uint64 is an u64 and the x in Int64 is an i64, therefore the type of x makes no sense (it has three incompatible types it can't reconcile).
Your use of trait bounds is also incorrect, trait bounds are a way for the caller to specify types, but get_node_num does not consider that for a single second, it doesn't care what the caller wants.
Plus the reasoning doesn't make sense:
However if I make it T it will be able to be any type, which I want to avoid.
get_node_num decides what the return type is, T is completely useless. get_node_num also can't work, because you can't return a "f64 or u64 or i64" in Rust, except by creating a new enum which stores these alternatives.
I work with a bunch of structs / enums included in each other. I need to get ty.node<TyKind::Path>.1.segments.last().identifiers and ty.node<TyKind::Path>.1.segments.last().parameters<AngleBracketed::AngleBracketed>.types.
Is there a simpler way to get these two values then my implementation of f? My ideal syntax would be:
ty.node<TyKind::Path>?.1.segments.last().identifiers
// and
ty.node<TyKind::Path>?.1.segments.last().parameters<AngleBracketed::AngleBracketed>?.types
It that's impossible, maybe there is a way to reduce the number of if let? I want to solve only this particular case, so simplification should be possible compared to f. If an analog of Option::map / Option::unwrap_or_else were introduced, then the sum of its code + the code in f should be less then my original f.
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Ty {
node: TyKind,
}
#[derive(Clone)]
enum TyKind {
Path(Option<i32>, Path),
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Path {
segments: Vec<PathSegment>,
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct PathSegment {
identifier: String,
parameters: Option<Box<PathParameters>>,
}
#[derive(Clone)]
enum PathParameters {
AngleBracketed(AngleBracketedParameterData),
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct AngleBracketedParameterData {
types: Vec<Box<Ty>>,
}
/// If Tylnode == Path -> return last path segment + types
fn f(ty: &Ty) -> Option<(String, Vec<Box<Ty>>)> {
match ty.node {
TyKind::Path(_, ref path) => if let Some(seg) = path.segments.iter().last() {
let ident = seg.identifier.clone();
println!("next_ty: seg.id {:?}", seg.identifier);
match seg.parameters.as_ref() {
Some(params) => match **params {
PathParameters::AngleBracketed(ref params) => {
Some((ident, params.types.clone()))
}
_ => Some((ident, vec![])),
},
None => Some((ident, vec![])),
}
} else {
None
},
_ => None,
}
}
To simplify the question, I have removed unrelated enum variants and struct fields.
No.
The closest you can get, using nightly features and helper code, is probably this
fn f(ty: &Ty) -> MyOption<(String, Vec<Box<Ty>>)> {
let last = ty.node.path()?.segments.my_last()?;
Just((
last.identifier.clone(),
last.ab_parameters()
.map(|v| v.types.clone())
.unwrap_or_else(|| vec![]),
))
}
Playground
I guess what you want is called Lenses. Not sure about Rust, but here is about Haskell https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Lenses_and_functional_references
It might be possible to implement that in Rust, if somebody haven't done yet.
I have a program that involves examining a complex data structure to see if it has any defects. (It's quite complicated, so I'm posting example code.) All of the checks are unrelated to each other, and will all have their own modules and tests.
More importantly, each check has its own error type that contains different information about how the check failed for each number. I'm doing it this way instead of just returning an error string so I can test the errors (it's why Error relies on PartialEq).
My Code So Far
I have traits for Check and Error:
trait Check {
type Error;
fn check_number(&self, number: i32) -> Option<Self::Error>;
}
trait Error: std::fmt::Debug + PartialEq {
fn description(&self) -> String;
}
And two example checks, with their error structs. In this example, I want to show errors if a number is negative or even:
#[derive(PartialEq, Debug)]
struct EvenError {
number: i32,
}
struct EvenCheck;
impl Check for EvenCheck {
type Error = EvenError;
fn check_number(&self, number: i32) -> Option<EvenError> {
if number < 0 {
Some(EvenError { number: number })
} else {
None
}
}
}
impl Error for EvenError {
fn description(&self) -> String {
format!("{} is even", self.number)
}
}
#[derive(PartialEq, Debug)]
struct NegativeError {
number: i32,
}
struct NegativeCheck;
impl Check for NegativeCheck {
type Error = NegativeError;
fn check_number(&self, number: i32) -> Option<NegativeError> {
if number < 0 {
Some(NegativeError { number: number })
} else {
None
}
}
}
impl Error for NegativeError {
fn description(&self) -> String {
format!("{} is negative", self.number)
}
}
I know that in this example, the two structs look identical, but in my code, there are many different structs, so I can't merge them. Lastly, an example main function, to illustrate the kind of thing I want to do:
fn main() {
let numbers = vec![1, -4, 64, -25];
let checks = vec![
Box::new(EvenCheck) as Box<Check<Error = Error>>,
Box::new(NegativeCheck) as Box<Check<Error = Error>>,
]; // What should I put for this Vec's type?
for number in numbers {
for check in checks {
if let Some(error) = check.check_number(number) {
println!("{:?} - {}", error, error.description())
}
}
}
}
You can see the code in the Rust playground.
Solutions I've Tried
The closest thing I've come to a solution is to remove the associated types and have the checks return Option<Box<Error>>. However, I get this error instead:
error[E0038]: the trait `Error` cannot be made into an object
--> src/main.rs:4:55
|
4 | fn check_number(&self, number: i32) -> Option<Box<Error>>;
| ^^^^^ the trait `Error` cannot be made into an object
|
= note: the trait cannot use `Self` as a type parameter in the supertraits or where-clauses
because of the PartialEq in the Error trait. Rust has been great to me thus far, and I really hope I'm able to bend the type system into supporting something like this!
When you write an impl Check and specialize your type Error with a concrete type, you are ending up with different types.
In other words, Check<Error = NegativeError> and Check<Error = EvenError> are statically different types. Although you might expect Check<Error> to describe both, note that in Rust NegativeError and EvenError are not sub-types of Error. They are guaranteed to implement all methods defined by the Error trait, but then calls to those methods will be statically dispatched to physically different functions that the compiler creates (each will have a version for NegativeError, one for EvenError).
Therefore, you can't put them in the same Vec, even boxed (as you discovered). It's not so much a matter of knowing how much space to allocate, it's that Vec requires its types to be homogeneous (you can't have a vec![1u8, 'a'] either, although a char is representable as a u8 in memory).
Rust's way to "erase" some of the type information and gain the dynamic dispatch part of subtyping is, as you discovered, trait objects.
If you want to give another try to the trait object approach, you might find it more appealing with a few tweaks...
You might find it much easier if you used the Error trait in std::error instead of your own version of it.
You may need to impl Display to create a description with a dynamically built String, like so:
impl fmt::Display for EvenError {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{} is even", self.number)
}
}
impl Error for EvenError {
fn description(&self) -> &str { "even error" }
}
Now you can drop the associated type and have Check return a trait object:
trait Check {
fn check_number(&self, number: i32) -> Option<Box<Error>>;
}
your Vec now has an expressible type:
let mut checks: Vec<Box<Check>> = vec![
Box::new(EvenCheck) ,
Box::new(NegativeCheck) ,
];
The best part of using std::error::Error...
is that now you don't need to use PartialEq to understand what error was thrown. Error has various types of downcasts and type checks if you do need to retrieve the concrete Error type out of your trait object.
for number in numbers {
for check in &mut checks {
if let Some(error) = check.check_number(number) {
println!("{}", error);
if let Some(s_err)= error.downcast_ref::<EvenError>() {
println!("custom logic for EvenErr: {} - {}", s_err.number, s_err)
}
}
}
}
full example on the playground
I eventually found a way to do it that I'm happy with. Instead of having a vector of Box<Check<???>> objects, have a vector of closures that all have the same type, abstracting away the very functions that get called:
fn main() {
type Probe = Box<Fn(i32) -> Option<Box<Error>>>;
let numbers: Vec<i32> = vec![ 1, -4, 64, -25 ];
let checks = vec![
Box::new(|num| EvenCheck.check_number(num).map(|u| Box::new(u) as Box<Error>)) as Probe,
Box::new(|num| NegativeCheck.check_number(num).map(|u| Box::new(u) as Box<Error>)) as Probe,
];
for number in numbers {
for check in checks.iter() {
if let Some(error) = check(number) {
println!("{}", error.description());
}
}
}
}
Not only does this allow for a vector of Box<Error> objects to be returned, it allows the Check objects to provide their own Error associated type which doesn't need to implement PartialEq. The multiple ases look a little messy, but on the whole it's not that bad.
I'd suggest you some refactoring.
First, I'm pretty sure, that vectors should be homogeneous in Rust, so there is no way to supply elements of different types for them. Also you cannot downcast traits to reduce them to a common base trait (as I remember, there was a question about it on SO).
So I'd use algebraic type with explicit match for this task, like this:
enum Checker {
Even(EvenCheck),
Negative(NegativeCheck),
}
let checks = vec![
Checker::Even(EvenCheck),
Checker::Negative(NegativeCheck),
];
As for error handling, consider use FromError framework, so you will able to involve try! macro in your code and to convert error types from one to another.