Here is my code:
struct MyStruct;
impl MyStruct {
static static_value: Vec<i32> = vec![1, 2, 3];
}
fn main() {
for elem in MyStruct::static_value {
println!("{}", elem);
}
}
And the compiler gives an error:
error: associated `static` items are not allowed
--> test.rs:3:5
|
3 | static static_value: Vec<i32> = vec![1, 2, 3];
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error: aborting due to previous error
Though in this case, I can simply replace the Vec<i32> with an integer array, still I would like to know why the rust compiler will prohibit such code and if there is any ways I can define a static vector.
An array is practically a constant vector.
The main difference ( in terms of usability ) between a vector and an array is the vectors ability to have a dynamic size which of course would be lost if it were constant.
static ARR: [i32; 3] = [1, 2, 3];
should be exactly what you are looking for.
As user4815162342 said "A vector is heap-allocated, so it cannot be static, i.e. baked into the executable."
This is the low level reason why a static vector is not possible.
I want to call .map() on an array of enums:
enum Foo {
Value(i32),
Nothing,
}
fn main() {
let bar = [1, 2, 3];
let foos = bar.iter().map(|x| Foo::Value(*x)).collect::<[Foo; 3]>();
}
but the compiler complains:
error[E0277]: the trait bound `[Foo; 3]: std::iter::FromIterator<Foo>` is not satisfied
--> src/main.rs:8:51
|
8 | let foos = bar.iter().map(|x| Foo::Value(*x)).collect::<[Foo; 3]>();
| ^^^^^^^ a collection of type `[Foo; 3]` cannot be built from an iterator over elements of type `Foo`
|
= help: the trait `std::iter::FromIterator<Foo>` is not implemented for `[Foo; 3]`
How do I do this?
The issue is actually in collect, not in map.
In order to be able to collect the results of an iteration into a container, this container should implement FromIterator.
[T; n] does not implement FromIterator because it cannot do so generally: to produce a [T; n] you need to provide n elements exactly, however when using FromIterator you make no guarantee about the number of elements that will be fed into your type.
There is also the difficulty that you would not know, without supplementary data, which index of the array you should be feeding now (and whether it's empty or full), etc... this could be addressed by using enumerate after map (essentially feeding the index), but then you would still have the issue of deciding what to do if not enough or too many elements are supplied.
Therefore, not only at the moment one cannot implement FromIterator on a fixed-size array; but even in the future it seems like a long shot.
So, now what to do? There are several possibilities:
inline the transformation at call site: [Value(1), Value(2), Value(3)], possibly with the help of a macro
collect into a different (growable) container, such as Vec<Foo>
...
Update
This can work:
let array: [T; N] = something_iterable.[into_]iter()
.collect::<Vec<T>>()
.try_into()
.unwrap()
In newer version of rust, try_into is included in prelude, so it is not necessary to use std::convert::TryInto. Further, starting from 1.48.0, array support directly convert from Vec type, signature from stdlib source:
fn try_from(mut vec: Vec<T, A>) -> Result<[T; N], Vec<T, A>> {
...
}
Original Answer
as of rustc 1.42.0, if your element impl Copy trait, for simplicity, this just works:
use std::convert::TryInto;
...
let array: [T; N] = something_iterable.[into_]iter()
.collect::<Vec<T>>()
.as_slice()
.try_into()
.unwrap()
collect as_slice try_into + unwrap()
Iterator<T> ------> Vec<T> -------> &[T] ------------------> [T]
But I would just call it a workaround.
You need to include std::convert::TryInto because the try_into method is defined in the TryInto trait.
Below is the signature checked when you call try_into as above, taken from the source. As you can see, that requires your type T implement Copy trait, so theoritically, it will copy all your elements once.
#[stable(feature = "try_from", since = "1.34.0")]
impl<T, const N: usize> TryFrom<&[T]> for [T; N]
where
T: Copy,
[T; N]: LengthAtMost32,
{
type Error = TryFromSliceError;
fn try_from(slice: &[T]) -> Result<[T; N], TryFromSliceError> {
<&Self>::try_from(slice).map(|r| *r)
}
}
While you cannot directly collect into an array for the reasons stated by the other answers, that doesn't mean that you can't collect into a data structure backed by an array, like an ArrayVec:
use arrayvec::ArrayVec; // 0.7.0
use std::array;
enum Foo {
Value(i32),
Nothing,
}
fn main() {
let bar = [1, 2, 3];
let foos: ArrayVec<_, 3> = array::IntoIter::new(bar).map(Foo::Value).collect();
let the_array = foos
.into_inner()
.unwrap_or_else(|_| panic!("Array was not completely filled"));
// use `.expect` instead if your type implements `Debug`
}
Pulling the array out of the ArrayVec returns a Result to deal with the case where there weren't enough items to fill it; the case that was discussed in the other answers.
For your specific problem, Rust 1.55.0 allows you to directly map an array:
enum Foo {
Value(i32),
Nothing,
}
fn main() {
let bar = [1, 2, 3];
let foos = bar.map(Foo::Value);
}
In this case you can use Vec<Foo>:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Foo {
Value(i32),
Nothing,
}
fn main() {
let bar = [1, 2, 3];
let foos = bar.iter().map(|&x| Foo::Value(x)).collect::<Vec<Foo>>();
println!("{:?}", foos);
}
.collect() builds data structures that can have arbitrary length, because the iterator's item number is not limited in general. (Shepmaster's answer already provides plenty details there).
One possibility to get data into an array from a mapped chain without allocating a Vec or similar is to bring mutable references to the array into the chain. In your example, that'd look like this:
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
enum Foo {
Value(i32),
Nothing,
}
fn main() {
let bar = [1, 2, 3];
let mut foos = [Foo::Nothing; 3];
bar.iter().map(|x| Foo::Value(*x))
.zip(foos.iter_mut()).for_each(|(b, df)| *df = b);
}
The .zip() makes the iteration run over both bar and foos in lockstep -- if foos were under-allocated, the higher bars would not be mapped at all, and if it were over-allocated, it'd keep its original initialization values. (Thus also the Clone and Copy, they are needed for the [Nothing; 3] initialization).
You can actually define a Iterator trait extension to do this!
use std::convert::AsMut;
use std::default::Default;
trait CastExt<T, U: Default + AsMut<[T]>>: Sized + Iterator<Item = T> {
fn cast(mut self) -> U {
let mut out: U = U::default();
let arr: &mut [T] = out.as_mut();
for i in 0..arr.len() {
match self.next() {
None => panic!("Array was not filled"),
Some(v) => arr[i] = v,
}
}
assert!(self.next().is_none(), "Array was overfilled");
out
}
}
impl<T, U: Iterator<Item = T>, V: Default + AsMut<[T]>> CastExt<T, V> for U { }
fn main () {
let a: [i32; 8] = (0..8).map(|i| i * 2).cast();
println!("{:?}", a); // -> [0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14]
}
Here's a playground link.
This isn't possible because arrays do not implement any traits. You can only collect into types which implement the FromIterator trait (see the list at the bottom of its docs).
This is a language limitation, since it's currently impossible to be generic over the length of an array and the length is part of its type. But, even if it were possible, it's very unlikely that FromIterator would be implemented on arrays because it'd have to panic if the number of items yielded wasn't exactly the length of the array.
You may combine arrays map method with Iterator::next.
Example:
fn iter_to_array<Element, const N: usize>(mut iter: impl Iterator<Item = Element>) -> [Element; N] {
// Here I use `()` to make array zero-sized -> no real use in runtime.
// `map` creates new array, which we fill by values of iterator.
let res = [(); N].map(|_| iter.next().unwrap());
// Ensure that iterator finished
assert!(matches!(iter.next(), None));
res
}
I ran into this problem myself — here's a workaround.
You can't use FromIterator, but you can iterate over the contents of a fixed-size object, or, if things are more complicated, indices that slice anything that can be accessed. Either way, mutation is viable.
For example, the problem I had was with an array of type [[usize; 2]; 4]:
fn main() {
// Some input that could come from another function and thus not be mutable
let pairs: [[usize; 2]; 4] = [[0, 0], [0, 1], [1, 1], [1, 0]];
// Copy mutable
let mut foo_pairs = pairs.clone();
for pair in foo_pairs.iter_mut() {
// Do some operation or other on the fixed-size contents of each
pair[0] += 1;
pair[1] -= 1;
}
// Go forth and foo the foo_pairs
}
If this is happening inside a small function, it's okay in my book. Either way, you were going to end up with a transformed value of identical type as the same one, so copying the whole thing first and then mutating is about the same amount of effort as referencing a value in a closure and returning some function of it.
Note that this only works if you plan to compute something that is going to be the same type, up to and including size/length. But that's implied by your use of Rust arrays. (Specifically, you could Value() your Foos or Nothing them as you like, and still be within type parameters for your array.)
I have a vector of numbers and use the windows(2) method to create an iterator that gives me neighbouring pairs. For example, the vector [1, 2, 3] is transformed into [1, 2], [2, 3]. I want to use the find method to find a slice that fulfills a specific condition:
fn step(g: u64) -> Option<(u64, u64)> {
let prime_list: Vec<u64> = vec![2, 3, 5, 7]; //For example
if prime_list.len() < 2 {
return None;
}
let res = prime_list.windows(2).find(|&&[a, b]| b - a == g)?;
//...
None
}
I get an error:
error[E0005]: refutable pattern in function argument: `&&[]` not covered
--> src/lib.rs:6:43
|
6 | let res = prime_list.windows(2).find(|&&[a, b]| b - a == g)?;
| ^^^^^^^^ pattern `&&[]` not covered
I don't know what that error means: the list cannot have less than two elements, for example. Maybe the closure parameter is wrong? I tried to vary it but that didn't change anything. a and b are being properly detected as u64 in my IDE too. What is going on here?
You, the programmer, know that each iterated value will have a length of 2, but how do you know that? You can only tell that from the prose documentation of the function:
Returns an iterator over all contiguous windows of length size. The windows overlap. If the slice is shorter than size, the iterator returns no values.
Nowhere does the compiler know this information. The implementation of Windows only states that the iterated value will be a slice:
impl<'a, T> Iterator for Windows<'a, T> {
type Item = &'a [T];
}
I'd convert the slice into an array reference, discarding any slices that were the wrong length (which you know cannot happen):
use std::convert::TryFrom;
fn step(g: u64) -> Option<(u64, u64)> {
let prime_list: Vec<u64> = vec![2, 3, 5, 7]; // For example
if prime_list.len() < 2 {
return None;
}
let res = prime_list
.windows(2)
.flat_map(<&[u64; 2]>::try_from)
.find(|&&[a, b]| b - a == g)?;
//...
None
}
See also:
How to convert a slice into an array reference?
How can I find a subsequence in a &[u8] slice?
How do I imply the type of the value when there are no type parameters or ascriptions?
Alternatively, you could use an iterator of integers and chunk it up.
See also:
Are there equivalents to slice::chunks/windows for iterators to loop over pairs, triplets etc?
At some point in the future, const generics might be stabilized and allow baking the array length into the function call and the return type.
See also:
Is it possible to control the size of an array using the type parameter of a generic?
As the title reads, how would I go about doing this?
fn foo(array: &[u32; 10]) -> &[u32; 5] {
&array[0..5]
}
Compiler error
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:2:5
|
2 | &array[0..5]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected array of 5 elements, found slice
|
= note: expected type `&[u32; 5]`
= note: found type `&[u32]`
arrayref implements a safe interface for doing this operation, using macros (and compile-time constant slicing bounds, of course).
Their readme explains
The goal of arrayref is to enable the effective use of APIs that involve array references rather than slices, for situations where parameters must have a given size.
and
let addr: &[u8; 16] = ...;
let mut segments = [0u16; 8];
// array-based API with arrayref
for i in 0 .. 8 {
segments[i] = read_u16_array(array_ref![addr,2*i,2]);
}
Here the array_ref![addr,2*i,2] macro allows us to take an array reference to a slice consisting of two bytes starting at 2*i. Apart from the syntax (less nice than slicing), it is essentially the same as the slice approach. However, this code makes explicit the need for precisely two bytes both in the caller, and in the function signature.
Stable Rust
It's not possible to do this using only safe Rust. To understand why, it's important to understand how these types are implemented. An array is guaranteed to have N initialized elements. It cannot get smaller or larger. At compile time, those guarantees allow the size aspect of the array to be removed, and the array only takes up N * sizeof(element) space.
That means that [T; N] and [T; M] are different types (when N != M) and you cannot convert a reference of one to the other.
The idiomatic solution is to use a slice instead:
fn foo(array: &[u32; 10]) -> &[u32] {
&array[0..5]
}
A slice contains a pointer to the data and the length of the data, thus moving that logic from compile time to run time.
Nightly Rust
You can perform a runtime check that the slice is the correct length and convert it to an array in one step:
#![feature(try_from)]
use std::convert::TryInto;
fn foo(array: &[u32; 10]) -> &[u32; 5] {
array[0..5].try_into().unwrap()
}
fn main() {}
Unsafe Rust
Because someone might want to do this the unsafe way in an earlier version of Rust, I'll present code based on the standard library implementation:
fn foo(array: &[u32; 10]) -> &[u32; 5] {
let slice = &array[0..5];
if slice.len() == 5 {
let ptr = slice.as_ptr() as *const [u32; 5];
unsafe { &*ptr }
} else {
panic!("Needs to be length 5")
}
}
fn main() {
let input = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9];
let output = foo(&input);
println!("{:?}", output);
}
In this code:
fn unpack_u32(data: &[u8]) -> u32 {
assert_eq!(data.len(), 4);
let res = data[0] as u32 |
(data[1] as u32) << 8 |
(data[2] as u32) << 16 |
(data[3] as u32) << 24;
res
}
fn main() {
let v = vec![0_u8, 1_u8, 2_u8, 3_u8, 4_u8, 5_u8, 6_u8, 7_u8, 8_u8];
println!("res: {:X}", unpack_u32(&v[1..5]));
}
the function unpack_u32 accepts only slices of length 4. Is there any way to replace the runtime check assert_eq with a compile time check?
Yes, kind of. The first step is easy: change the argument type from &[u8] to [u8; 4]:
fn unpack_u32(data: [u8; 4]) -> u32 { ... }
But transforming a slice (like &v[1..5]) into an object of type [u8; 4] is hard. You can of course create such an array simply by specifying all elements, like so:
unpack_u32([v[1], v[2], v[3], v[4]]);
But this is rather ugly to type and doesn't scale well with array size. So the question is "How to get a slice as an array in Rust?". I used a slightly modified version of Matthieu M.'s answer to said question (playground):
fn unpack_u32(data: [u8; 4]) -> u32 {
// as before without assert
}
use std::convert::AsMut;
fn clone_into_array<A, T>(slice: &[T]) -> A
where A: Default + AsMut<[T]>,
T: Clone
{
assert_eq!(slice.len(), std::mem::size_of::<A>()/std::mem::size_of::<T>());
let mut a = Default::default();
<A as AsMut<[T]>>::as_mut(&mut a).clone_from_slice(slice);
a
}
fn main() {
let v = vec![0_u8, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8];
println!("res: {:X}", unpack_u32(clone_into_array(&v[1..5])));
}
As you can see, there is still an assert and thus the possibility of runtime failure. The Rust compiler isn't able to know that v[1..5] is 4 elements long, because 1..5 is just syntactic sugar for Range which is just a type the compiler knows nothing special about.
I think the answer is no as it is; a slice doesn't have a size (or minimum size) as part of the type, so there's nothing for the compiler to check; and similarly a vector is dynamically sized so there's no way to check at compile time that you can take a slice of the right size.
The only way I can see for the information to be even in principle available at compile time is if the function is applied to a compile-time known array. I think you'd still need to implement a procedural macro to do the check (so nightly Rust only, and it's not easy to do).
If the problem is efficiency rather than compile-time checking, you may be able to adjust your code so that, for example, you do one check for n*4 elements being available before n calls to your function; you could use the unsafe get_unchecked to avoid later redundant bounds checks. Obviously you'd need to be careful to avoid mistakes in the implementation.
I had a similar problem, creating a fixed byte-array on stack corresponding to const length of other byte-array (which may change during development time)
A combination of compiler plugin and macro was the solution:
https://github.com/frehberg/rust-sizedbytes