Summary

Add macros and traits, for minimal support of structural enums.

The new constructs are:

In client code, write the following

rust use enumx::Enum; use enumx::prelude::*;

to use the constructs mentioned above.

Motivation

An enum can be utilized to express a set of finite, known elements. Enums composed of variants that do not refer to domain knowledge are considered as structural enums. They serve as a mechanism of code organisations.

Full-fledged structural enums provide mechanisms not only for gathering values of variants into enums, but also for gathering variants of an structural enum, into another one.

Such a mechanism is not available in Rust, requiring Rustaceans to implement it themselves when needed.

While it is easy to write maros for "variants => enum" gathering, a general "enum => enum" convertion is non-trival to implement.

These facts have caused some unfavorable results:

This library addresses these issues by inroducing a minimum support of structural enums, aka exchangeable enums.

Overview

An enum with #[derive(Exchange)] is considered as an exchangeable enum.

```rust

[derive(Exchange)]

enum Info { Code(i32), Text(&'static str), } ```

An exchangeable enum can be constructed from one of its variants:

rust let info: Info = 42.into_enum(); let info = Info::from_variant(42);

An exchangeable enum can be exchanged from/into another exchangeable one, as long as one has all the variant types appearing in the other one's definition.

```rust

[derive(Exchange)]

enum Data { Num(i32), Text(&'static str), Flag(bool), }

let info: Info = 42.intoenum(); let data: Data = info.exchangeinto();

let info = Info::fromvariant(42); let data = Data::exchangefrom(info); ```

Enum methods

By now, we call from_variant(), into_enum(), exchange_from(), exchange_into()as enum exchange methods.

Syntax limits of exchangeable enum

All variants must be in the form of "newtype".

```rust

[derive(Exchange)]

enum Info { Text(String), // ok, it is newtype Code(i32,u32), // compile error } ```

should cause an error:

text 1926 | Code(i32,u32), | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ all variants of an exchangeable enum must be newtype

Predefined exchangeable enums

The Enum!( T0, T1, .. ) macro defines an predefined exchangeable enum composed of variant types T0, T1, .. etc.

rust let info = <Enum!(i32,&'static str)>::from_variant(42);

is essentially equvalent to the following:

rust let info = __Enum2::from_variant(42);

while __Enum2 is predefined but may not exposed to programmers:

```rust

[derive(Exchange)]

enum __Enum2 { _0(i32), _1(&'static str), } ```

Two Enum!()s with identical variant type list are identical types.

<Enum!( T0, T1, .. )>::_0 for the first variant in pattern matching, and so forth.

rust match info { <Enum!(i32,&'static str)>::_0(_i) => (), <Enum!(i32,&'static str)>::_1(_s) => (), }

Predefined enums are also Exchangeable enums. They are considered as unnamed exchangeable enums, while user-defined ones are called named exchangeable enums.

An unnamed exchangeable enum is suitable in such usescases that an structural enum does not worth a name, while a named exchangeable enum serves for those do worth naming.

From now on, we will prefer using predefined enums in examples, since they are superior as notations, comparing to user-defined enums.

Convertion rules

The following 2 rules are considered as the minimum support of structural enum:

  1. variant <=> exchangeable enum

    from_variant()/into_enum() serve for it.

  2. exchangeable enum => exchangeable enum composed of equal or more variants

    exchange_from()/exchange_into() serve for it.

The following rules are considered perculiar to exchangeable enums, which distinguish them from "union types" in Typed Racket.

  1. An exchangeable enum composed of duplicated variant types is a valid enum, but it is nonsense because acual uses of its enum exchange methods will cause compile errors.

text 9 | let a = <Enum!(i32,i32)>::_0( 3722 ); | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ variants of an exchangeable enum must be unique.

  1. No automatic flattening

    For example, Enum!(A,Enum!(B,C)) can not be converted to Enum!(A,B,C) via enum exchange methods. Further more, making these two equal types will need changes in type systems, which is not possible for a proc-macro derive.

Detailed design

The definition of enum exchange traits are as following:

```rust pub trait FromVariant { fn from_variant(v: Variant) -> Self; }

pub trait IntoEnum { fn into_enum(self) -> Enum; }

pub trait ExchangeFrom { fn exchange_from(src: Src) -> Self; }

pub trait ExchangeInto { fn exchange_into(self) -> Dest; } ```

Notice that all traits have phantom types Index/Indices and Kind in their generics to hold positional information to help compiler accomplishing type inferences and avoid overlapping impls.

Distinguish from std::convert

Since standard From/Into does not have such phantom types, it is not feasible to implement enum exchange methods in From/Into. Trying to implement in From will cause compile error because we need to impl multiple From<Variant> but the generic Variant type in different impls could be of the same actual type, resulting in overlapping impls.

Distinguish between Index and Indices

Consider the convertion from Enum!(A,B) to Enum!(A,B,Enum!(A,B)).

Since these two enum types are not equal due to lacking of flattening , there are two possible ways for this convertion:

  1. making the former as the third variant of the latter.

  2. matching the former to get an A or B, then making it as the first or second variant of the latter.

This is the root cause we distinguish between FromVariant and ExchangeFrom.

Drawbacks

Rationale and alternatives

Misuse: always defining types and their convertions explicitly

People misusing this believe it is in such a case that:

  1. All types, including structural enums, should have readable names, either handwritten or generated from user-defined macro.

  2. Convertions between types should be defined explictly, either handwritten or generated from user-defined macro. They work in the way analogy to friend keyword in C++.

People using exchangeable enums believe it is in such a case that:

  1. An structural enum may or may not worth a readable name.

  2. Convertions between structural enums should be derived from Exchange, which works in the way analogy to pub keyword.

Always naming an structural enum and generating convertions for it will mislead readers considering it being deliberate unless they finish reading all the code.

Take two analogies:

  1. What if we are not allowed to use closures and local defined functions, but have to use structural structs and functions defined far away from their only invokings, for mimicing closures?

  2. What if we are not allowed to use pub/pub(crate)/pub(super), but have to explicitly authorize all the possible friends of a certain field?

Misuse: trait objects

People misusing trait objects believe it is in such a case that:

  1. All types, including structural enums, should implement some trait and may be categorized to a hierarchy of traits.

  2. All types should be erased, and accesses should be done via public interface.

It is reasonable to use trait objects to express a set of unpredicable elements having a set of related methods in a trait. Using it to express a set of predicable elements having unrelated functions is possible, but is a concept mismatch, which may potentially cause pitfalls:

  1. Useless methods in trait.

  2. Unnecessary boxing and 'static lifetime bounds.

  3. non-straightforward down-casting.

These are all non-issues for structural enums to express a set of predicable elements having unrelated functions.

Prior art

Concepts similar with structural enum exist in other language. One example is union types in Typed Racket. However, it supports more powerful type inferences such as Enum!(A) => A, Enum!(A,A) => Enum!(A), Enum!(A,Enum!(B,C)) => Enum!(A,B,C). All these seems to bring significant changes to Rust internals.

The frunk_core library provides coproduct which is similar with ad-hic enums, by which this library is inspired. However it aims at generic programming and the coproduct is nested enums, not supporting pattern matching.

License

Licensed under MIT.