-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RFC: Add pub fn identity<T>(x: T) -> T { x }
to core::convert
#2306
Changes from 1 commit
dd8fb12
32741df
bd36bbb
1cfc8fd
1c8c20c
088860d
ca0e063
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ | ||
- Feature Name: convert_id | ||
- Start Date: 2018-01-19 | ||
- RFC PR: (leave this empty) | ||
- Rust Issue: (leave this empty) | ||
|
||
# Summary | ||
[summary]: #summary | ||
|
||
Adds an identity function `pub fn id<T>(x: T) -> T { x }` as `core::convert::id`. | ||
The function is also re-exported to `std::convert::id` as well as the prelude of | ||
both libcore and libstd. | ||
|
||
# Motivation | ||
[motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
||
## The identity function is useful | ||
|
||
While it might seem strange to have a function that just returns back the input, | ||
there are some cases where the function is useful. | ||
|
||
### Using `id` to do nothing among a collection of mappers | ||
|
||
When you have collections such as maps or arrays of mapping functions like | ||
below and you watch to dispatch to those you sometimes need the identity | ||
function as a way of not transforming the input. You can use the identity | ||
function to achieve this. | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
// Let's assume that this and other functions do something non-trivial. | ||
fn do_interesting_stuff(x: u32) -> u32 { .. } | ||
|
||
// A dispatch-map of mapping functions: | ||
let mut map = HashMap::new(); | ||
map.insert("foo", do_interesting_stuff); | ||
map.insert("bar", other_stuff); | ||
map.insert("baz", id); | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### Using `id` as a no-op function in a conditional | ||
|
||
This reasoning also applies to simpler yes/no dispatch as below: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
let mapper = if condition { some_manipulation } else { id }; | ||
|
||
// do more interesting stuff inbetween.. | ||
|
||
do_stuff(42); | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### Using `id` to concatenate an iterator of iterators | ||
|
||
Given the law `join = (>>= id)`, we use the identity function to perform | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. This sentence needlessly complicates a simple operation; I don't see any use of including the monad reference There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The operation There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I mean, don't mention monad at all. Rust doesn't typically use that term. There is no reason to include it here. You're writing for Rustaceans, not Haskellers, just say "flatten" and "flat_map" There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm trying to choose my battles here =) I tried to come up with a compromise solution... But I don't like the "don't mention the M word" attitude in general.. Rustaceans say "and_then", "flat_map", etc... but they may also say bind, "monad", and "join" at times since Rustaceans are a diverse group and some of them come from Haskell, Scala, F# and other such places. Also, I don't think that shying away from the word Monad helps learnability. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. No, that's the point. You aren't optimizing for Haskellers Rustaceans by using "monad". Haskeller Rustaceans know the Rust terminology perfectly well. You only end up disoptimizing for non-FP Rustaceans. Rustaceans are a diverse group, but there's an option here that is adequate for all Rustaceans. This is literally the kind of thing that made folks confused by the pi types RFC. Now, this is at a much smaller scale, but I'm trying to stomp out the attitude of using unfamiliar terminology where not necessary in RFCs as much as possible. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We have a fundamental disagreement here.
Haskeller Rustaceans might not know that particular part of Rust... And nonetheless, there might be non-Rustacean functional programmers that might be interested in reading our RFCs or other documentation at some point. Besides, the current text of the RFC explains it in a way that is adequate for all Rustaceans since it includes the following language as well:
However, in an effort to not make this RFC block on this disagreement I'll agree to remove the language from the RFC. |
||
a monadic join on iterators in this example. | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
let vec_vec = vec![vec![1, 3, 4], vec![5, 6]]; | ||
let iter_iter = vec_vec.into_iter().map(Vec::into_iter); | ||
let concatenated = iter_iter.flat_map(id).collect::<Vec<_>>(); | ||
assert_eq!(vec![1, 3, 4, 5, 6], concatenated); | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### Using `id` to keep the `Some` variants of an iterator of `Option<T>` | ||
|
||
We can keep all the maybe variants by simply `iter.filter_map(id)`. | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
let iter = vec![Some(1), None, Some(3)].into_iter(); | ||
let filtered = iter.filter_map(id).collect::<Vec<_>>(); | ||
assert_eq!(vec![1, 3], filtered); | ||
``` | ||
|
||
### To be clear that you intended to use an identity conversion | ||
|
||
If you instead use a closure as in `|x| x` when you need an | ||
identity conversion, it is less clear that this was intentional. | ||
With `id`, this intent becomes clearer. | ||
|
||
## The `drop` function as a precedent | ||
|
||
The `drop` function in `core::mem` is defined as `pub fn drop<T>(_x: T) { }`. | ||
The same effect can be achieved by writing `{ _x; }`. This presents us | ||
with a precendent that such trivial functions are considered useful and | ||
includable inside the standard library even tho they can be written easily | ||
Centril marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
inside a user's crate. | ||
|
||
## Avoiding repetition in user crates | ||
|
||
Here are a few examples of the identity function being defined and used: | ||
|
||
+ https://docs.rs/functils/0.0.2/functils/fn.identity.html | ||
+ https://docs.rs/tool/0.2.0/tool/fn.id.html | ||
+ https://github.com/hephex/api/blob/ef67b209cd88d0af40af10b4a9f3e0e61a5924da/src/lib.rs | ||
|
||
There's a smattering of more examples. To reduce duplication, it | ||
should be provided in the standard library as a common place it is defined. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I don't think this argument is persuasive for functions. There's a case for things like traits and structs having a common definition, since they're nominal and thus the commonality can improve interoperability (not that that place needs to be |
||
|
||
## Precedent from other languages | ||
|
||
There are other languages that include an identity function in | ||
their standard libraries, among these are: | ||
|
||
+ [Haskell](http://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-4.10.1.0/docs/Prelude.html#v:id), which also exports this to the prelude. | ||
+ [Scala](https://www.scala-lang.org/api/current/scala/Predef$.html#identity[A](x:A):A), which also exports this to the prelude. | ||
+ [Java](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/function/Function.html#identity--), which is a widely used language. | ||
+ [Idris](https://www.idris-lang.org/docs/1.0/prelude_doc/docs/Prelude.Basics.html), which also exports this to the prelude. | ||
+ [Ruby](http://ruby-doc.org/core-2.5.0/Object.html#method-i-itself), which exports it to what amounts to the top type. | ||
+ [Racket](http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/values.html) | ||
+ [Julia](https://docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.4/stdlib/base/#Base.identity) | ||
+ [R](https://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-devel/library/base/html/identity.html) | ||
+ [F#](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualfsharpdocs/conceptual/operators.id%5B%27t%5D-function-%5Bfsharp%5D) | ||
+ [Clojure](https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/identity) | ||
+ [Agda](http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/repos/lib/src/Function.agda) | ||
+ [Elm](http://package.elm-lang.org/packages/elm-lang/core/latest/Basics#identity) | ||
|
||
## The case for inclusion in the prelude | ||
|
||
Let's compare the effort required, assuming that each letter | ||
typed has a uniform cost wrt. effort. | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
use std::convert::id; iter.filter_map(id) | ||
|
||
fn id<T>(x: T) -> T { x } iter.filter_map(id) | ||
|
||
iter.filter_map(::std::convert::id) | ||
|
||
iter.filter_map(id) | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Comparing the length of these lines, we see that there's not much difference in | ||
length when defining the function yourself or when importing or using an absolute | ||
path. But the prelude-using variant is considerably shorter. To encourage the | ||
use of the function, exporting to the prelude is therefore a good idea. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is true for literally every possible library addition, so I don't think its a good argument. |
||
|
||
In addition, there's an argument to be made from similarity to other things in | ||
`core::convert` as well as `drop` all of which are in the prelude. This is | ||
especially relevant in the case of `drop` which is also a trivial function. | ||
|
||
# Guide-level explanation | ||
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation | ||
|
||
An identity function is a mapping of one type onto itself such that the output | ||
is the same as the input. In other words, a function `id : T -> T` for some | ||
type `T` defined as `id(x) = x`. This RFC adds such a function for all types | ||
in Rust into libcore at the module `core::convert` and defines it as: | ||
|
||
```rust | ||
pub fn id<T>(x: T) -> T { x } | ||
``` | ||
|
||
This function is also re-exported to `std::convert::id` as well as | ||
the prelude of both libcore and libstd. | ||
|
||
It is important to note that the input `x` passed to the function is | ||
moved since Rust uses move semantics by default. | ||
|
||
# Reference-level explanation | ||
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation | ||
|
||
An identity function defined as `pub fn id<T>(x: T) -> T { x }` exists in | ||
`core::convert::id`. The function is also re-exported to `std::convert::id` | ||
as well as the prelude of both libcore and libstd. | ||
|
||
Note that the identity function is not always equivalent to a closure | ||
such as `|x| x` since the closure may coerce `x` into a different type | ||
while the identity function never changes the type. | ||
|
||
# Drawbacks | ||
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks | ||
|
||
It is already possible to do this in user code by: | ||
|
||
+ using an identity closure: `|x| x`. | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What specific advantages do you see of There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. A previous version of the RFC used I assert that length is not the defining factor of ergonomics. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess that's what I'm disputing, but it's totally a matter of opinion. I'd expect people familiar with Rust's syntax to quickly grok There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I can't speak for everyone, but I always double take when I see There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What users are you referring to specifically here? Current Rust users or all programmers in general? I think I believe you are correct in either case, but still - I have no evidence to offer myself that your assertion is correct, which is less than satisfactory.
Now that the length "advantage" (if we believe it is that) of
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. @Centril Thanks for explaining! Those arguments seem reasonable to me. I personally still think that |
||
+ writing the identity function as defined in the RFC yourself. | ||
|
||
These are contrasted with the [motivation] for including the function | ||
in the standard library. | ||
|
||
# Rationale and alternatives | ||
[alternatives]: #alternatives | ||
|
||
The rationale for including this in `convert` and not `mem` is that the | ||
former generally deals with conversions, and identity conversion" is a used | ||
phrase. Meanwhile, `mem` does not relate to `identity` other than that both | ||
deal with move semantics. Therefore, `convert` is the better choice. Including | ||
it in `mem` is still an alternative, but as explained, it isn't fitting. | ||
|
||
The rationale for including this in the prelude has been previously | ||
explained in the [motivation] section. It is an alternative to not do that. | ||
If the function is not in the prelude, the utility is so low that it may | ||
be a better idea to not add the function at all. | ||
|
||
Naming the function `identity` instead of `id` is a possibility. | ||
However, to make the `id` function more appetizing than using a `|x| x`, it is | ||
preferrable for the identity function to have a shorter but still clear name. | ||
|
||
# Unresolved questions | ||
[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions | ||
|
||
There are no unresolved questions. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel it should be called
identity
, id is really short and ambiguous.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
id
has pecedent in other languages like Haskell. I could go either way, but it being short and known as the identity function elsewhere is nice to have.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Identity is a better name in the prelude, if we keep that possibility open. I think we go for not overly abbreviated names of functions in Rust
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's also called identity in Java, which is probably more used than Haskell. Though that function may be used less in Java.
Familiarity arguments work if there's uniformity; there isn't, and it feels like plenty of folks won't have ever consciously noticed/used it, so I'd prefer to optimize for folks who don't know what it is.
identity
is clear and also should be obvious to those used toid
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Manishearth I've provided this motivation for the naming:
Why is
id
ambiguous? Are you referring to a potential ambiguity with "identifier"?And why is this potential ambiguity an overriding concern to the one I've listed?
I think
id
is clear from context - If there are other functions around in the context that look likeT -> T
, you know it's not going to be "identifier"...Yes - I suspect it is used way less in Java than in Haskell. I prefer to optimize for folks who are most likely to use the operation, which are probably on balance more functional programmers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just to clarify: it is the relative length I am concerned about, not the absolute. I'd like to encourage people to use
id
instead of|x| x
, but that might be harder withidentity
... Does that make sense to you?Out of curiosity - since you say more short things - which ones are you referring to?
But if you can, that will make your concern more actionable for me =)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My point still stands.
identity
is more ergonomic than the closure even if it is longer, by virtue of being just an identifier. It also can be used in more contexts because it has the same type as other functions (almost).I do not think that I'd being shorter than the closure has any benefit. We are rarely trying to optimize for less typing. See also
We already have short functions like drop in the prelude. drop is fine and well known, but adding more feels iffy to me. I feel this is going to clash with locals quite often. Clashes in the prelude are fine, but make things murkier because someone reading the code would expect it to be a local.
(Actually, for that matter there's a general argument to be made against adding functions to the prelude -- there are very few and it's going to be surprising for folks to see a different function that doesn't seem to be imported anywhere. Unless it becomes ubiquitous. Which I suspect it won't.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess I'll change it to
identity
then by popular demand. What tipped me over was this note by @nox:I think it is necessary and essential that this be in the prelude however and there's certainly precedent for it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How embarrassing.
For the record, I forgot to filter the grep command to only
*.rs
files and thus it also included our local clone ofweb-platform-tests
, a massive repository of Web tests running in browsers. There are actually only 1,533 lines with the wordid
in Servo.That's still a huge number to me though, but nowhere near the one I mistakenly reported at first.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And the function shall henceforth be known as
identity
.