Is there a way to count with macros? - macros

I want to create a macro that prints "Hello" a specified number of times. It's used like:
many_greetings!(3); // expands to three `println!("Hello");` statements
The naive way to create that macro is:
macro_rules! many_greetings {
($times:expr) => {{
println!("Hello");
many_greetings!($times - 1);
}};
(0) => ();
}
However, this doesn't work because the compiler does not evaluate expressions; $times - 1 isn't calculated, but fed as a new expression into the macro.

While the ordinary macro system does not enable you to repeat the macro expansion many times, there is no problem with using a for loop in the macro:
macro_rules! many_greetings {
($times:expr) => {{
for _ in 0..$times {
println!("Hello");
}
}};
}
If you really need to repeat the macro, you have to look into procedural macros/compiler plugins (which as of 1.4 are unstable, and a bit harder to write).
Edit: There are probably better ways of implementing this, but I've spent long enough on this for today, so here goes. repeat!, a macro that actually duplicates a block of code a number of times:
main.rs
#![feature(plugin)]
#![plugin(repeat)]
fn main() {
let mut n = 0;
repeat!{ 4 {
println!("hello {}", n);
n += 1;
}};
}
lib.rs
#![feature(plugin_registrar, rustc_private)]
extern crate syntax;
extern crate rustc;
use syntax::codemap::Span;
use syntax::ast::TokenTree;
use syntax::ext::base::{ExtCtxt, MacResult, MacEager, DummyResult};
use rustc::plugin::Registry;
use syntax::util::small_vector::SmallVector;
use syntax::ast::Lit_;
use std::error::Error;
fn expand_repeat(cx: &mut ExtCtxt, sp: Span, tts: &[TokenTree]) -> Box<MacResult + 'static> {
let mut parser = cx.new_parser_from_tts(tts);
let times = match parser.parse_lit() {
Ok(lit) => match lit.node {
Lit_::LitInt(n, _) => n,
_ => {
cx.span_err(lit.span, "Expected literal integer");
return DummyResult::any(sp);
}
},
Err(e) => {
cx.span_err(sp, e.description());
return DummyResult::any(sp);
}
};
let res = parser.parse_block();
match res {
Ok(block) => {
let mut stmts = SmallVector::many(block.stmts.clone());
for _ in 1..times {
let rep_stmts = SmallVector::many(block.stmts.clone());
stmts.push_all(rep_stmts);
}
MacEager::stmts(stmts)
}
Err(e) => {
cx.span_err(sp, e.description());
DummyResult::any(sp)
}
}
}
#[plugin_registrar]
pub fn plugin_registrar(reg: &mut Registry) {
reg.register_macro("repeat", expand_repeat);
}
added to Cargo.toml
[lib]
name = "repeat"
plugin = true
Note that if we really don't want to do looping, but expanding at compile-time, we have to do things like requiring literal numbers. After all, we are not able to evaluate variables and function calls that reference other parts of the program at compile time.

As the other answers already said: no, you can't count like this with declarative macros (macro_rules!).
But you can implement the many_greetings! example as a procedural macro. procedural macros were stabilized a while ago, so the definition works on stable. However, we can't yet expand macros into statements on stable -- that's what the #![feature(proc_macro_hygiene)] is for.
This looks like a lot of code, but most code is just error handling, so it's not that complicated!
examples/main.rs
#![feature(proc_macro_hygiene)]
use count_proc_macro::many_greetings;
fn main() {
many_greetings!(3);
}
Cargo.toml
[package]
name = "count-proc-macro"
version = "0.1.0"
authors = ["me"]
edition = "2018"
[lib]
proc-macro = true
[dependencies]
quote = "0.6"
src/lib.rs
extern crate proc_macro;
use std::iter;
use proc_macro::{Span, TokenStream, TokenTree};
use quote::{quote, quote_spanned};
/// Expands into multiple `println!("Hello");` statements. E.g.
/// `many_greetings!(3);` will expand into three `println`s.
#[proc_macro]
pub fn many_greetings(input: TokenStream) -> TokenStream {
let tokens = input.into_iter().collect::<Vec<_>>();
// Make sure at least one token is provided.
if tokens.is_empty() {
return err(Span::call_site(), "expected integer, found no input");
}
// Make sure we don't have too many tokens.
if tokens.len() > 1 {
return err(tokens[1].span(), "unexpected second token");
}
// Get the number from our token.
let count = match &tokens[0] {
TokenTree::Literal(lit) => {
// Unfortunately, `Literal` doesn't have nice methods right now, so
// the easiest way for us to get an integer out of it is to convert
// it into string and parse it again.
if let Ok(count) = lit.to_string().parse::<usize>() {
count
} else {
let msg = format!("expected unsigned integer, found `{}`", lit);
return err(lit.span(), msg);
}
}
other => {
let msg = format!("expected integer literal, found `{}`", other);
return err(other.span(), msg);
}
};
// Return multiple `println` statements.
iter::repeat(quote! { println!("Hello"); })
.map(TokenStream::from)
.take(count)
.collect()
}
/// Report an error with the given `span` and message.
fn err(span: Span, msg: impl Into<String>) -> TokenStream {
let msg = msg.into();
quote_spanned!(span.into()=> {
compile_error!(#msg);
}).into()
}
Running cargo run --example main prints three "Hello"s.

For those looking for a way to do this, there is also the seq_macro crate.
It is fairly easy to use and works out of the box with stable Rust.
use seq_macro::seq;
macro_rules! many_greetings {
($times:literal) => {
seq!{ N in 0..$times {
println!("Hello");
}}
};
}
fn main() {
many_greetings!(3);
many_greetings!(12);
}

As far as I know, no. The macro language is based on pattern matching and variable substitution, and only evaluates macros.
Now, you can implement counting with evaluation: it just is boring... see the playpen
macro_rules! many_greetings {
(3) => {{
println!("Hello");
many_greetings!(2);
}};
(2) => {{
println!("Hello");
many_greetings!(1);
}};
(1) => {{
println!("Hello");
many_greetings!(0);
}};
(0) => ();
}
Based on this, I am pretty sure one could invent a set of macro to "count" and invoke various operations at each step (with the count).

Related

How to return a result from the Blake2 crate in Rust?

I am struggling getting the hash of the passed file name using the blake2 crate. From the documentation:
extern crate blake2;
use blake2::{Blake2b, Digest};
use std::env;
use std::fs;
use std::io::{self, Read};
const BUFFER_SIZE: usize = 1024;
fn print_result(sum: &[u8]) {
for byte in sum {
print!("{:02x}", byte);
}
}
fn process<D: Digest + Default, R: Read>(reader: &mut R) {
let mut sh = D::default();
let mut buffer = [0u8; BUFFER_SIZE];
loop {
let n = match reader.read(&mut buffer) {
Ok(n) => n,
Err(_) => return,
};
sh.input(&buffer[..n]);
if n == 0 || n < BUFFER_SIZE {
break;
}
}
print_result(&sh.result());
}
fn main() {
let args = env::args();
if args.len() > 1 {
for path in args.skip(1) {
if let Ok(mut file) = fs::File::open(&path) {
process::<Blake2b, _>(&mut file);
}
}
} else {
process::<Blake2b, _>(&mut io::stdin());
}
}
blake-test $ cargo run hoge.txt
Compiling blake-test v0.1.0 (/Users/hoge/blake-test)
Finished dev [unoptimized + debuginfo] target(s) in 0.61s
Running `target/debug/blake-test hoge.txt`
eefea9ae6b7fb678ed54e6d58d46aed9eae6d003f29419948cdb42a44a7016dee3eb566e7e95c68ac7587d5debd516a3b195eed0db84d72819e387d687fd06a6
It can successfully print the the &[u8] slice.
However, I want to receive/return the results instead of printing them.
When you're returning a newly-created object, you have to return it as an owned value.
Borrowed references, such as &[u8] are temporary and can't exist by themselves, they're merely a views of data that has storage in an owned form elsewhere.
You can for example, call .to_vec() on the slice and return Vec<u8>.

Why is a negative integer not a valid pattern in a macro?

Let us consider a simple enum implementation with a static method that check whether a value has an associated value (the efficiency of the implementation is not to be regarded here):
enum Letter {
Alpha = -1,
A = 0,
B = 1,
C = 2,
}
impl Letter {
pub fn in_enum(value: isize) -> bool
{
match value {
-1 => true,
0 => true,
1 => true,
2 => true,
_ => false,
}
}
}
Now, let us write a macro for building enums with an equivalent in_enum method. The macro below was written with some guidance from the Serde guide for enum deserialization as numbers, in which matching for enum variant values also occurs.
macro_rules! my_enum {
($name:ident { $($variant:ident = $value:expr, )* }) => {
#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug, Eq, PartialEq)]
pub enum $name {
$($variant = $value,)*
}
impl $name {
pub fn in_enum(value: isize) -> bool
{
match value {
$( $value => true, )*
_ => false,
}
}
}
}
}
my_enum!(Letter {
Alpha = -1,
A = 0,
B = 1,
C = 2,
});
Playground.
With version 1.18.0, the compiler won't accept the variant with a negative integer.
error: expected pattern, found `-1`
--> src/main.rs:13:24
|
13 | $( $value => true, )*
| ^^^^^^
This seems to happen regardless of how I write this pattern down in the macro, or whether I use i32 or isize for the value method parameter. Changing the fragment specifier of $value to pat is also out of the question: the compiler will refuse to build the enum, even without negative variant values.
error: expected expression, found `-1`
--> src/main.rs:5:26
|
5 | $($variant = $value,)*
| ^^^^^^
What's surprising about this is that it works without using macros, as well as when I discard the Alpha variant.
Why does this happen?
This is a bug in the compiler and is already fixed in the nightly version as of today (Jul 5, 2017), and released in stable version 1.20.0.

How to get index of macro repetition single element

I need to get index of macro repetition element to write next code:
struct A {
data: [i32; 3]
}
macro_rules! tst {
( $( $n:ident ),* ) => {
impl A {
$(
fn $n(self) -> i32 {
self.data[?] // here I need the index
}
),*
}
}
}
I know one way to do it: just tell user to write index by hands:
( $( $i:ident => $n:ident ),* )
But is there a more elegant way which does not require user's action?
The easiest way is to use recursion, like so:
struct A {
data: [i32; 3]
}
macro_rules! tst {
(#step $_idx:expr,) => {};
(#step $idx:expr, $head:ident, $($tail:ident,)*) => {
impl A {
fn $head(&self) -> i32 {
self.data[$idx]
}
}
tst!(#step $idx + 1usize, $($tail,)*);
};
($($n:ident),*) => {
tst!(#step 0usize, $($n,)*);
}
}
tst!(one, two, three);
fn main() {
let a = A { data: [10, 20, 30] };
println!("{:?}", (a.one(), a.two(), a.three()));
}
Note that I changed the method to take &self instead of self, since it made writing the example in the main function easier. :)
Each step in the recursion just adds 1 to the index. It is a good idea to use "typed" integer literals to avoid compilation slowdown due to lots and lots of integer inference.

Can a Rust macro create new identifiers?

I'd like to create a setter/getter pair of functions where the names are automatically generated based on a shared component, but I couldn't find any example of macro rules generating a new name.
Is there a way to generate code like fn get_$iden() and SomeEnum::XX_GET_$enum_iden?
If you are using Rust >= 1.31.0 I would recommend using my paste crate which provides a stable way to create concatenated identifiers in a macro.
macro_rules! make_a_struct_and_getters {
($name:ident { $($field:ident),* }) => {
// Define the struct. This expands to:
//
// pub struct S {
// a: String,
// b: String,
// c: String,
// }
pub struct $name {
$(
$field: String,
)*
}
paste::item! {
// An impl block with getters. Stuff in [<...>] is concatenated
// together as one identifier. This expands to:
//
// impl S {
// pub fn get_a(&self) -> &str { &self.a }
// pub fn get_b(&self) -> &str { &self.b }
// pub fn get_c(&self) -> &str { &self.c }
// }
impl $name {
$(
pub fn [<get_ $field>](&self) -> &str {
&self.$field
}
)*
}
}
};
}
make_a_struct_and_getters!(S { a, b, c });
My mashup crate provides a stable way to create new identifiers that works with any Rust version >= 1.15.0.
#[macro_use]
extern crate mashup;
macro_rules! make_a_struct_and_getters {
($name:ident { $($field:ident),* }) => {
// Define the struct. This expands to:
//
// pub struct S {
// a: String,
// b: String,
// c: String,
// }
pub struct $name {
$(
$field: String,
)*
}
// Use mashup to define a substitution macro `m!` that replaces every
// occurrence of the tokens `"get" $field` in its input with the
// concatenated identifier `get_ $field`.
mashup! {
$(
m["get" $field] = get_ $field;
)*
}
// Invoke the substitution macro to build an impl block with getters.
// This expands to:
//
// impl S {
// pub fn get_a(&self) -> &str { &self.a }
// pub fn get_b(&self) -> &str { &self.b }
// pub fn get_c(&self) -> &str { &self.c }
// }
m! {
impl $name {
$(
pub fn "get" $field(&self) -> &str {
&self.$field
}
)*
}
}
}
}
make_a_struct_and_getters!(S { a, b, c });
No, not as of Rust 1.22.
If you can use nightly builds...
Yes: concat_idents!(get_, $iden) and such will allow you to create a new identifier.
But no: the parser doesn't allow macro calls everywhere, so many of the places you might have sought to do this won't work. In such cases, you are sadly on your own. fn concat_idents!(get_, $iden)(…) { … }, for example, won't work.
There's a little known crate gensym that can generate unique UUID names and pass them as the first argument to a macro, followed by a comma:
macro_rules! gen_fn {
($a:ty, $b:ty) => {
gensym::gensym!{ _gen_fn!{ $a, $b } }
};
}
macro_rules! _gen_fn {
($gensym:ident, $a:ty, $b:ty) => {
fn $gensym(a: $a, b: $b) {
unimplemented!()
}
};
}
mod test {
gen_fn!{ u64, u64 }
gen_fn!{ u64, u64 }
}
If all you need is a unique name, and you don't care what it is, that can be useful. I used it to solve a problem where each invocation of a macro needed to create a unique static to hold a singleton struct. I couldn't use paste, since I didn't have unique identifiers I could paste together in the first place.

Rust match fails because of unreachable pattern [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
Why is this match pattern unreachable when using non-literal patterns?
(1 answer)
Closed 5 years ago.
I am doing some simple stuff with rust... just touching some ground you know.
So I was playing with command line arguments, and I can't go past this:
use std::os::args;
fn main(){
let arg1 = args().get(1).to_str();
let help_command = "help";
if args().len() == 1 {
println!("No arguments.");
}
else if args().len() == 2 {
match arg1 {
help_command => println!("Do ..."),
_ => println!("no valid argument")
}
}
}
I can't compile... The error is:
main.rs:17:4: 17:5 error: unreachable pattern
main.rs:17 _ => println!("no valid argument")
^
error: aborting due to previous error
Also, I am using Rust 0.11.0-pre-nightly.
EDIT: Also, if I go with this approach:
match arg1 {
"help" => { /* ... / },
_ => { / ... */ },
}
It throws another error:
error: mismatched types: expected collections::string::String but found &'static str (expected struct collections::string::String but found &-ptr)
You can't use variables on Rust's match patterns. The code is being interpreted as binding whatever value is on arg1 as a new variable called help_command, and thus the catch-all pattern never matches.
You can use the literal string to match arg1:
match arg1 {
"help" => { /* ... */ },
_ => { /* ... */ },
}
Or use a guard:
match arg1 {
command if command == help_command => { /* ... */ },
_ => { /* ... */ }
}
If you are concerned about the type safety and/or repetition with using strings directly, you can parse the command into an enum:
enum Command {
HelpCommand,
DoStuffCommand
}
fn to_command(arg: &str) -> Option<Command> {
match arg {
"help" => Some(HelpCommand),
"do-stuff" => Some(DoStuffCommand),
_ => None,
}
}
Working example
Update (thanks #ChrisMorgan): It is also possible to use a static variable:
static HELP: &'static str = "help";
match arg1 {
HELP => { /* ... */ },
_ => { /* ... */ },
}
About the error reported in the question edit: Rust has two kinds of strings: &str (string slice) and String (owned string). The main difference is that the second is growable and can be moved. Refer to the links to understand the distinction better.
The error you are encountering is due to the fact that string literals ("foo") are of type &str, while std::os::args() is a Vec of String. The solution is simple: Use the .as_slice() method on the String to take slice out of it, and be able to compare it to the literal.
In code:
match arg1.as_slice() {
"help" => { /* ... */ },
_ => { /* ... */ },
}