Skip to content
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

Type alias enum variants #2338

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 5, 2018
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
120 changes: 120 additions & 0 deletions text/2338-type-alias-enum-variants.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
- Feature Name: `type_alias_enum_variants`
- Start Date: 2018-02-15
- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#2338](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2338)
- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#49683](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49683)

# Summary
[summary]: #summary

This RFC proposes to allow access to enum variants through type aliases. This
enables better abstraction/information hiding by encapsulating enums in aliases
without having to create another enum type and requiring the conversion from
and into the "alias" enum.

# Motivation
[motivation]: #motivation

While type aliases provide a useful means of encapsulating a type definition in
order to hide implementation details or provide a more ergonomic API, the
substitution principle currently falls down in the face of enum variants. It's
reasonable to expect that a type alias can fully replace the original type
specification, and so the lack of working support for aliased enum variants
represents an ergonomic gap in the language/type system. This can be useful in
exposing an interface from a dependency to library users while "hiding" the exact
implementation details. There's at least some evidence that people have asked
about this capability before.

Since `Self` also works as an alias, this should also enable the use of `Self`
in more places.

# Guide-level explanation
[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation

In general, the simple explanation here is that type aliases can be used in
more places where you currently have to go through the original type definition,
as it relates to enum variants. As much as possible, enum variants should work
as if the original type was specified rather than the alias. This should make
type aliases easier to learn than before, because there are fewer exceptions
to their applicability.

```rust
enum Foo {
Bar(i32),
Baz { i: i32 },
}

type Alias = Foo;

fn main() {
let t = Alias::Bar(0);
let t = Alias::Baz { i: 0 };
match t {
Alias::Bar(_i) => {}
Alias::Baz { i: _i } => {}
}
}
```

# Reference-level explanation
[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation

If a path refers into an alias, the behavior for enum variants should be as
if the alias was substituted with the original type. Here are some examples of
the new behavior in edge cases:

```rust
type Alias<T> = Option<T>;

mod foo {
pub use Alias::Some;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm inclined to think this shouldn't be allowed, or at least it shouldn't be part of the initial implementation. After all, even

pub use Option::Some;

does not work right now, although

pub use ::std::option::Option::Some;

does, however.
For me, the semantics are unclear, and I'd be inclined not to accept it by default.

Anyway, would appreciate the thoughts of @rust-lang/lang on this matter.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, this can't work right now.
Option::Some is module-relative (enums and traits are kind of modules from name resolution's point of view), so they can be used in imports.
Alias::Some is type-relative, and we need type checking to determine what Alias actually refers to, so it cannot be used in imports due to phase separation.

}

Option::<u8>::None // Not allowed
Option::None::<u8> // Ok
Alias::<u8>::None // Not allowed
Alias::None::<u8> // Ok
foo::Some::<u8> // Ok
```

This is the proposed handling for how to propagate type arguments from alias
paths:

* If the previous segment is a type (alias or enum), the variant segment
"gifts" its arguments to that previous segment.
* If the previous segment is not a type (for example, a module), the variant
segment treats the arguments as arguments for the variant's enum.
* In paths that specify both the alias and the variant, type arguments must
be specified after the variant, not after the aliased type. This extends the
current behavior to enum aliases.

# Drawbacks
[drawbacks]: #drawbacks

We should not do this if the edge cases make the implemented behavior too
complex or surprising to reason about the alias substitution.

# Rationale and alternatives
[alternatives]: #alternatives

This design seems like a straightforward extension of what type aliases are
supposed to be for. In that sense, the main alternative seems to be to do
nothing. Currently, there are two ways to work around this:

1. Require the user to implement wrapper `enum`s instead of using aliases.
This hides more information, so it may provide more API stability. On the
other hand, it also mandates boxing and unboxing which has a run-time
performance cost; and API stability is already up to the user in most other
cases.

2. Renaming of types via `use` statements. This provides a good solution in the
case where there are no type variables that you want to fill in as part of
the alias, but filling in variables is part of the motivating use case for
having aliases.

As such, not implementing aliased enum variants this makes it harder to
encapsulate or hide parts of an API.

# Unresolved questions
[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions

As far as I know, there are no unresolved questions at this time.