As php8 allows match like :
echo match ($v) {
0 => 'Foo',
1 => 'Bar',
2 => 'Baz',
}; // Bar
I wonder if there is a way to use in match more complicated conditions, like :
if ($checkValueType == EnumType::Integer and ! isValidInteger($value) and ! empty
($default_value)) {
return $default_value;
}
if ($checkValueType == EnumType::Float and ! isValidFloat($value) and ! empty($default_value)) {
return $default_value;
}
if ($checkValueType == EnumType::Bool and ! isValidBool($value) and ! empty($default_value)) {
return $default_value;
}
return $value;
Thanks in advance!
No, you can't do that, because match is an expression, and cannot contain statements.
Structure of a match expression
$return_value = match (subject_expression) {
single_conditional_expression => return_expression,
conditional_expression1, conditional_expression2 => return_expression,
};
A confusing title, I know. But the code should be clear:
class A {
has $.foo = 1;
# how can I access B::bar from here?
}
class B {
has $.bar = 2;
has A $.a;
submethod TWEAK {
$!a = A.new;
}
}
my $b = B.new;
say $b; # B.new(bar => 2, a => A.new(foo => 1))
say $b.a; # A.new(foo => 1)
my $test := $b.a;
say $test; # A.new(foo => 1)
Given $test, how can I access B::bar (which is on the same "level" as $test)?
Personally if I had to do this I'd state that A can have an attribute parent that fulfils a Role HasBar like so.
role HasBar {
has $.bar = 2;
}
class A {
has $.foo = 1;
has HasBar $.parent;
}
class B does HasBar {
has A $.a;
submethod TWEAK {
$!a = A.new( parent => self );
}
}
Attributes generally don't (and shouldn't) know if they are contained in another object. So if you want to be able to do that you need to tell them the connection exists. I prefer using Roles to do this as then your A class could be an attribute in lots of different things as long as the container has a bar accessible.
You could try this:
class B { ... } #need to decl B before you use it
class A {
has $.foo is rw = 1; #foo is already =1
has B $.b;
} #no TWEAK needed
class B {
has $.bar is rw = 2;
has A $.a;
}
say my $a = A.new(b => B.new);
say my $b = B.new(a => A.new);
say my $a2 = A.new(b => $b);
say my $b2 = B.new(a => $a2);
say $a2.b.bar; #2
say $b2.a.foo; #1
$b2.a.b.a.foo = 42; #added is rw trait to show this
say $b2;
#B.new(bar => 2, a => A.new(foo => 1, b => B.new(bar => 2, a => A.new(foo => 42, b => B))))
If you look at the output you will see that the $b2 is a nested recursion. Not sure if that is what you want! My bet is that #scimon s answer is a better one...
Minimal code to reproduce:
macro_rules! test {
($name:ident: $count:expr) => {
macro_rules! $name {
($($v:expr),*) => {}
}
}
}
test!(yo: 123);
Got error:
error: attempted to repeat an expression containing no syntax variables matched as repeating at this depth
--> src/lib.rs:4:15
|
4 | ($($v:expr),*) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
Removing $count:expr or changing $count:expr to another type like $count:block omits the error, but I really need it to be expr. What does the error mean?
This is a known issue (#35853). The current recommended workaround is to pass in the dollar sign $ as a separate token. You can then call yourself, passing in the $:
macro_rules! test {
($name:ident: $count:expr) => { test!($name: $count, $) };
($name:ident: $count:expr, $dol:tt) => {
macro_rules! $name {
($dol($v:expr),*) => {}
}
};
}
fn main() {
test!(yo: 2);
yo!(42);
}
I have a macro to generate match arms:
macro_rules! sort_by {
( $query:ident, $sort_by:expr, { $( $name:pat => $column:path,)+ } ) => {
match $sort_by.column {
$(
$name => if $sort_by.descending {
$query = $query.order_by($column.desc());
} else {
$query = $query.order_by($column.asc());
},
)+
}
}
}
and I want to call it like this:
sort_by!(query, sort_by.unwrap_or(Sort::desc("id")), {
"id" => table::id,
"customerName" => table::customer_name,
});
But I'm getting an error:
sort_by!(query, &sort_by.unwrap_or(Sort::desc("id")), {
^^^^^^^ value moved here in previous iteration of loop
So I have to call it like this:
let sort = sort_by.unwrap_or(Sort::desc("id"));
sort_by!(query, &sort, {
"id" => table::id,
"customerName" => table::customer_name,
});
What should I change to be able to use the expression directly in the macro invocation?
Using a macro is equivalent to substituting the code it expands to into its call site. This means if the macro expansion contains $sort_by multiple times, the code will evaluate the expression you pass in as $sort_by multiple times. If the expression consumes some variable, this will be invalid.
This is in contrast to how function calls work. If you pass an expression to a function, it will be evaluated before calling the function, and only the result is passed to the function.
If this is the source of your problem, you can fix it by assigning $sort_by to a local variable inside your macro expansion, and only access the local variable subsequently:
macro_rules! sort_by {
($query:ident, $sort_by:expr, { $($name:pat => $column:path,)+ }) => {
let sort_by = $sort_by;
match sort_by.column {
$(
$name => if sort_by.descending {
$query = $query.order_by($column.desc());
} else {
$query = $query.order_by($column.asc());
},
)+
}
}
}
(Note that I could not test this, since your example is incomplete.)
There are certain rare cases where it may be useful to prevent duplicate arguments to a macro. One example is this elem(value, ...) macro to check if value is either A, B or C:
if (elem(value, A, B, C)) { .... }
Someone could accidentally pass in the same argument multiple times, e.g.:
if (elem(value, A, B, B)) { .... }
While this is valid Rust, it is almost certainly an accident and highly unlikely to be what the developer intended. This is a trivial example, actual error cases would be more complicated.
Is there a way to have the compiler warn/error when passing in duplicate arguments?
Arguments are not necessarily all constants, they could be mixed with variables too.
This is an actual bug I found in some code. While there's a limit macros/compilers can go to prevent mistakes, this could have been detected early if the macro didn't allow it. These kinds of mistakes should be found in code review but mistakes happen.
One way to do this (which isn't fool proof), could be to convert the identifiers to strings, then static-assert if any of the identifiers are exact matches. This has the obvious drawback that different identifiers may represent the same constant value. The same identifier could also be written so as to not compare, e.g.: A[0] vs A[ 0 ].
If the preprocessor/compiler can't do this easily, a fall-back solution may be some basic static checking tool.
I managed to do this with the C preprocessor.
One way to achieve what you want is the following:
macro_rules! unique_args {
($($idents:ident),*) => {
{
#[allow(dead_code, non_camel_case_types)]
enum Idents { $($idents,)* __CountIdentsLast }
}
};
}
macro_rules! _my_elem {
($val:expr, $($var:expr),*) => {{
$($val == $var)||*
}};
}
macro_rules! my_elem {
($($tt:tt)*) => {{
unique_args!($($tt)*);
_my_elem!($($tt)*)
}};
}
The idea is that having the same identifier twice will cause a compiler error because an enum cannot have duplicate variant names.
You can use this as such:
if my_elem!(w, x, y, z) {
println!("{}", w);
}
Here is an example with an error:
// error[E0428]: a value named `y` has already been defined in this enum
if my_elem!(w, x, y, y) {
println!("{}", w);
}
However, this will only work with identifiers.
If you want to use literals as well, you will need a macro with a different syntax to be able to differentiate between a literal and an identifier:
macro_rules! unique_idents {
() => {
};
($tt:tt) => {
};
($ident1:ident, $ident2:ident) => {
{
#[allow(dead_code, non_camel_case_types)]
enum Idents {
$ident1,
$ident2,
}
}
};
($ident:ident, lit $expr:expr) => {
};
($ident1:ident, $ident2:ident, $($tt:tt)*) => {
{
#[allow(dead_code, non_camel_case_types)]
enum Idents {
$ident1,
$ident2,
}
unique_idents!($ident1, $($tt)*);
unique_idents!($ident2, $($tt)*);
}
};
($ident:ident, lit $expr:expr, $($tt:tt)*) => {
unique_idents!($ident, $($tt)*);
};
(lit $expr:expr, $($tt:tt)*) => {
unique_idents!($($tt)*);
};
}
macro_rules! unique_literals {
() => {
};
($tt:tt) => {
};
(lit $lit1:expr, lit $lit2:expr) => {{
type ArrayForStaticAssert_ = [i8; 0 - (($lit1 == $lit2) as usize)];
}};
(lit $lit:expr, $ident:ident) => {
};
(lit $lit1:expr, lit $lit2:ident, $($tt:tt)*) => {{
unique_literals!(lit $lit1, lit $lit2);
unique_literals!(lit $lit1, $($tt)*);
unique_literals!(lit $lit2, $($tt)*);
}};
(lit $lit:expr, $ident:ident, $($tt:tt)*) => {
unique_literals!(lit $lit, $($tt)*);
};
($ident:ident, $($tt:tt)*) => {
unique_literals!($($tt)*);
};
}
macro_rules! unique_args2 {
($($tt:tt)*) => {{
unique_idents!($($tt)*);
unique_literals!($($tt)*);
}};
}
macro_rules! _elem {
() => {
false
};
($val:expr) => {
false
};
($val1:expr, $val2:expr) => {{
$val1 == $val2
}};
($val1:expr, lit $val2:expr) => {{
$val1 == $val2
}};
($val1:expr, $val2:expr, $($tt:tt)*) => {{
$val1 == $val2 || _elem!($val1, $($tt)*)
}};
($val1:expr, lit $val2:expr, $($tt:tt)*) => {{
$val1 == $val2 || _elem!($val1, $($tt)*)
}};
}
macro_rules! elem {
($($tt:tt)*) => {{
unique_args2!($($tt)*);
_elem!($($tt)*)
}};
}
The uniq_idents! macro uses the same trick as above.
The unique_literals! macro will cause a subtract with overflow error that is caught at compile time.
With these macros, you will need to prefix each literal by lit:
if elem!(w, x, lit 1, z) {
println!("{}", w);
}
Here are some examples of errors:
// error[E0428]: a value named `y` has already been defined in this enum
if elem!(w, x, y, y) {
println!("{}", w);
}
// error[E0080]: constant evaluation error
if elem!(w, x, lit 1, z, lit 1) {
println!("{}", w);
}
I think it is the best we can do without using a compiler plugin.
It is possible to improve these macros, but you get the idea.
Even though there is a stringify! macro that can be use to convert any expression to a string, I don't think we currently have a way to compare these strings at compile time (without a compiler plugin), at least until we have const fn.