Here is a simplified example of my problem:
struct User;
struct Community;
enum Actor {
User(User),
Community(Community),
}
trait Name {
fn name() -> &'static str;
}
impl Name for User {
fn name() -> &'static str { "/u/nutomic" }
}
impl Name for Community {
fn name() -> &'static str { "/c/rust " }
}
fn main() {
let actor = Actor::Community(Community);
println!("{}", actor.name());
}
As you may have noticed, this doesnt compile. The only solution I can think of is with a match. I want to avoid that because I have an enum with 30+ variants, and a trait with multiple methods. So that would be a huge match statement in each method, when the compiler should know that the enum variants all have the same trait.
So, do you know any way to make this work without match?
Update, after some more searching I found a crate which does almost what I want: impl-enum. Okay actually I want to specify a whole trait instead of individual methods, so I’ll try to make a PR for that.
I remember seeing a crate somewhere where it implements a trait if all of the variants are tuple struct variants (wrong name) that implement that trait. Not sure what it’s called.
Maybe this one? Unfortunately it doesnt work in my case, because I have a bunch of derived traits, generics and async. Maybe a new derive trait could be written to solve this problem.
Yeah, pretty sure it was that one. Alas.
Just implement Name for Actor.
That requires using a
matchstatement in the implementation, though, does it not?Yes,
matchis how you access enum variants in Rust. You only need to implement it once for theActorenum.Yeah, but the question was about not having to use such a
matchstatement or somehow making it less verbose, since they have 30 enum variants and several methods in that trait, so the file that implements the trait would become very long.In this case you may want to use a trait object instead of an enum.
The only way to destructure an enum is via
matchorif letstatements. If allenumvariants would contain common data then I would suggest to move this data to astructand keep theenumas separate field in that structure (same likeio::Errorand it’sKindenumeration). Another way would be to use a macro to derive the implementation automatically; there may be crates already there that can do this sort of delegation. See https://crates.io/search?q=delegateEnum variants are values and not types. You cannot implement traits for values. Rust will not magically implement traits for you (unless they are auto-traits, and this currently are not user defined). Rust does not support inheritance (it is not an OOP language) and instead you use composition which means that you have to compose things manually (or via macro) if you use static constructs like the
enum(in contrast to run-time trait object).
You are right, if you are using an enum for tons of different types, you pretty much have no choice but to use a match.
Actor to me there shouldn’t be an enum, but a parent trait or struct, that all of those implement, with a name function.
The reason I am using an enum is because I am deserializing this data with serde, which works perfectly as I only need to call
serde_json::from_str()once. Without the enum, I would have to execute it once for every struct. In another case I am using the same pattern to deserialize into 30+ different structs, so I would need to callserde_json::from_str()30+ times in the worst case, until I try the right struct.I guess generating the match with a macro is the best solution.
If you don’t care whether the public-facing type is a struct or an enum, you could make the enum private and use
#[serde(from="PrivateEnum")]on the public struct.I dont care what the public type is, so that sounds perfect. But its not clear to me from the documentation how that attribute works. Do you happen to know an example?
Hmm, best I can think of is switching to a whole different paradigm, akin to the Entity-Component-System architecture, but that is a pretty big step and you give up lots of compile time guarantees. So, unless you need lots of flexibility anyways, it’s probably not worth it.
Here’s a rough example thrown together from code I had laying around: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=e91ae7eeff8b79e9e37c7e7917bda5c6
Thanks, but the compile time guarantees are exactly why I want to use this pattern. And honestly your code looks much more complicated than the other option, which is using a macro to generate the match.
I guess, this isn’t really directly a solution to your issue, it just kind of feels like an ECS-like solution might be appropriate to obsolete these types of problems completely.
But yeah, I don’t know your code and as I said, an ECS architecture can really be a pain, too.
