I have some code that iterates over objects and uses an async method on each of them sequentially before doing something with the results. I'd like to change it so that the async method calls are joined into a single future before being executed. The important bit below is in HolderStruct::add_squares. My current code looks like this:
use anyhow::Result;
struct AsyncMethodStruct {
value: u64
}
impl AsyncMethodStruct {
fn new(value: u64) -> Self {
AsyncMethodStruct {
value
}
}
async fn get_square(&self) -> Result<u64> {
Ok(self.value * self.value)
}
}
struct HolderStruct {
async_structs: Vec<AsyncMethodStruct>
}
impl HolderStruct {
fn new(async_structs: Vec<AsyncMethodStruct>) -> Self {
HolderStruct {
async_structs
}
}
async fn add_squares(&self) -> Result<u64> {
let mut squares = Vec::with_capacity(self.async_structs.len());
for async_struct in self.async_structs.iter() {
squares.push(async_struct.get_square().await?);
}
let mut sum = 0;
for square in squares.iter() {
sum += square;
}
return Ok(sum);
}
}
I'd like to change HolderStruct::add_squares to something like this:
use futures::future::join_all;
// [...]
impl HolderStruct {
async fn add_squares(&self) -> Result<u64> {
let mut square_futures = Vec::with_capacity(self.async_structs.len());
for async_struct in self.async_structs.iter() {
square_futures.push(async_struct.get_square());
}
let square_results = join_all(square_futures).await;
let mut sum = 0;
for square_result in square_results.iter() {
sum += square_result?;
}
return Ok(sum);
}
}
However, the compiler gives me this error using the above:
error[E0277]: the `?` operator can only be applied to values that implement `std::ops::Try`
--> src/main.rs:46:20
|
46 | sum += square_result?;
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the `?` operator cannot be applied to type `&std::result::Result<u64, anyhow::Error>`
|
= help: the trait `std::ops::Try` is not implemented for `&std::result::Result<u64, anyhow::Error>`
= note: required by `std::ops::Try::into_result`
How would I change the code to not have this error?
for square_result in square_results.iter()
Lose the iter() call here.
for square_result in square_results
You seem to be under impression that calling iter() is mandatory to iterate over a collection. Actually, anything that implements IntoIterator can be used in a for loop.
Calling iter() on a Vec<T> derefs to slice (&[T]) and yields an iterator over references to the vectors elements. The ? operator tries to take the value out of the Result, but that is only possible if you own the Result rather than just have a reference to it.
However, if you simply use a vector itself in a for statement, it will use the IntoIterator implementation for Vec<T> which will yield items of type T rather than &T.
square_results.into_iter() does the same thing, albeit more verbosely. It is mostly useful when using iterators in a functional style, a la vector.into_iter().map(|x| x + 1).collect().
Related
I want a method like this:
trait RetainRange {
fn retain_range(&mut self, range: std::ops::Range<usize>);
}
impl<T> RetainRange for Vec<T> {
fn retain_range(&mut self, range: std::ops::Range<usize>) {
// Retain only the elements within the given range.
let mut i = 0usize;
self.retain(|el| {
let r = range.contains(&i);
i += 1;
r
});
}
}
But calling a lambda and range.contains() every time seems like it might be inefficient. Is there a better way?
This code generates what appears to be more efficient assembly.
fn retain_range(&mut self, range: std::ops::Range<usize>) {
self.truncate(range.end);
if range.start < self.len() {
self.drain(0..range.start);
} else {
self.clear();
}
}
Adding the if range.start < self.len() check avoids a panic if the range is past the end of the Vec, and actually also improves the assembly.
In C you can use the pointer offset to get index of an element within an array, e.g.:
index = element_pointer - &vector[0];
Given a reference to an element in an array, this should be possible in Rust too.
While Rust has the ability to get the memory address from vector elements, convert them to usize, then subtract them - is there a more convenient/idiomatic way to do this in Rust?
There isn't a simpler way. I think the reason is that it would be hard to guarantee that any operation or method that gave you that answer only allowed you to use it with the a Vec (or more likely slice) and something inside that collection; Rust wouldn't want to allow you to call it with a reference into a different vector.
More idiomatic would be to avoid needing to do it in the first place. You can't store references into Vec anywhere very permanent away from the Vec anyway due to lifetimes, so you're likely to have the index handy when you've got the reference anyway.
In particular, when iterating, for example, you'd use the enumerate to iterate over pairs (index, &item).
So, given the issues which people have brought up with the pointers and stuff; the best way, imho, to do this is:
fn index_of_unchecked<T>(slice: &[T], item: &T) -> usize {
if ::std::mem::size_of::<T>() == 0 {
return 0; // do what you will with this case
}
(item as *const _ as usize - slice.as_ptr() as usize)
/ std::mem::size_of::<T>()
}
// note: for zero sized types here, you
// return Some(0) if item as *const T == slice.as_ptr()
// and None otherwise
fn index_of<T>(slice: &[T], item: &T) -> Option<usize> {
let ptr = item as *const T;
if
slice.as_ptr() < ptr &&
slice.as_ptr().offset(slice.len()) > ptr
{
Some(index_of_unchecked(slice, item))
} else {
None
}
}
although, if you want methods:
trait IndexOfExt<T> {
fn index_of_unchecked(&self, item: &T) -> usize;
fn index_of(&self, item: &T) -> Option<usize>;
}
impl<T> IndexOfExt<T> for [T] {
fn index_of_unchecked(&self, item: &T) -> usize {
// ...
}
fn index_of(&self, item: &T) -> Option<usize> {
// ...
}
}
and then you'll be able to use this method for any type that Derefs to [T]
This is a very simple example, but how would I do something similar to:
let fact = |x: u32| {
match x {
0 => 1,
_ => x * fact(x - 1),
}
};
I know that this specific example can be easily done with iteration, but I'm wondering if it's possible to make a recursive function in Rust for more complicated things (such as traversing trees) or if I'm required to use my own stack instead.
There are a few ways to do this.
You can put closures into a struct and pass this struct to the closure. You can even define structs inline in a function:
fn main() {
struct Fact<'s> { f: &'s dyn Fn(&Fact, u32) -> u32 }
let fact = Fact {
f: &|fact, x| if x == 0 {1} else {x * (fact.f)(fact, x - 1)}
};
println!("{}", (fact.f)(&fact, 5));
}
This gets around the problem of having an infinite type (a function that takes itself as an argument) and the problem that fact isn't yet defined inside the closure itself when one writes let fact = |x| {...} and so one can't refer to it there.
Another option is to just write a recursive function as a fn item, which can also be defined inline in a function:
fn main() {
fn fact(x: u32) -> u32 { if x == 0 {1} else {x * fact(x - 1)} }
println!("{}", fact(5));
}
This works fine if you don't need to capture anything from the environment.
One more option is to use the fn item solution but explicitly pass the args/environment you want.
fn main() {
struct FactEnv { base_case: u32 }
fn fact(env: &FactEnv, x: u32) -> u32 {
if x == 0 {env.base_case} else {x * fact(env, x - 1)}
}
let env = FactEnv { base_case: 1 };
println!("{}", fact(&env, 5));
}
All of these work with Rust 1.17 and have probably worked since version 0.6. The fn's defined inside fns are no different to those defined at the top level, except they are only accessible within the fn they are defined inside.
As of Rust 1.62 (July 2022), there's still no direct way to recurse in a closure. As the other answers have pointed out, you need at least a bit of indirection, like passing the closure to itself as an argument, or moving it into a cell after creating it. These things can work, but in my opinion they're kind of gross, and they're definitely hard for Rust beginners to follow. If you want to use recursion but you have to have a closure, for example because you need something that implements FnOnce() to use with thread::spawn, then I think the cleanest approach is to use a regular fn function for the recursive part and to wrap it in a non-recursive closure that captures the environment. Here's an example:
let x = 5;
let fact = || {
fn helper(arg: u64) -> u64 {
match arg {
0 => 1,
_ => arg * helper(arg - 1),
}
}
helper(x)
};
assert_eq!(120, fact());
Here's a really ugly and verbose solution I came up with:
use std::{
cell::RefCell,
rc::{Rc, Weak},
};
fn main() {
let weak_holder: Rc<RefCell<Weak<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32>>> =
Rc::new(RefCell::new(Weak::<fn(u32) -> u32>::new()));
let weak_holder2 = weak_holder.clone();
let fact: Rc<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32> = Rc::new(move |x| {
let fact = weak_holder2.borrow().upgrade().unwrap();
if x == 0 {
1
} else {
x * fact(x - 1)
}
});
weak_holder.replace(Rc::downgrade(&fact));
println!("{}", fact(5)); // prints "120"
println!("{}", fact(6)); // prints "720"
}
The advantages of this are that you call the function with the expected signature (no extra arguments needed), it's a closure that can capture variables (by move), it doesn't require defining any new structs, and the closure can be returned from the function or otherwise stored in a place that outlives the scope where it was created (as an Rc<Fn...>) and it still works.
Closure is just a struct with additional contexts. Therefore, you can do this to achieve recursion (suppose you want to do factorial with recursive mutable sum):
#[derive(Default)]
struct Fact {
ans: i32,
}
impl Fact {
fn call(&mut self, n: i32) -> i32 {
if n == 0 {
self.ans = 1;
return 1;
}
self.call(n - 1);
self.ans *= n;
self.ans
}
}
To use this struct, just:
let mut fact = Fact::default();
let ans = fact.call(5);
I'm building a generic vector class in Swift with three types: Float, Double and Int. This works so far, but when I try to calculate the length of the vector I run into an issue.
The formula for vector length is the square root of (x²+y²). But since I use a generic class for my vectors, the values of x and y are called T.
The sqrt function of Swift only accepts Double as an argument but no generic argument.
Is there any way to use the sqrt function with generic parameters?
Here is a snippet of the code I use for the vector length and the dot product:
protocol ArithmeticType {
func + (left: Self, right: Self) -> Self
func - (left: Self, right: Self) -> Self
func * (left: Self, right: Self) -> Self
func / (left: Self, right: Self) -> Self
prefix func - (left: Self) -> Self
func toDouble() -> Double
}
extension Double: ArithmeticType {
func toDouble() -> Double {
return Double(self)
}
}
extension Float: ArithmeticType {
func toDouble() -> Double {
return Double(self)
}
}
extension Int: ArithmeticType {
func toDouble() -> Double {
return Double(self)
}
}
class Vector<T where T: ArithmeticType, T: Comparable> {
var length: T { return sqrt((self ⋅ self).toDouble()) }
}
infix operator ⋅ { associativity left }
func ⋅<T: ArithmeticType> (left: Vector<T>, right: Vector<T>) -> T {
var result: T? = nil
for (index, value) in enumerate(left.values) {
let additive = value * right.values[index]
if result == nil {
result = additive
} else if let oldResult = result {
result = oldResult + additive
}
}
if let unwrappedResult = result {
return unwrappedResult
}
}
In Swift 3, just use the FloatingPoint protocol that is part of the standard library instead of your ArithmeticType protocol. Floatand Double conform to the FloatingPoint protocol. The FlotingPoint protocol has a squareRoot() method, so
class Vector<T where T: FloatingPoint> {
var length: T { return (self ⋅ self).squareRoot() }
}
should do the trick.
No need to import any libraries or do any run-time type checking! Invoking this method turns into an LLVM built-in, so there isn't even any function calling overhead. On an x86, sqareRoot() should just generate a single machine language instruction, leaving the result in a register for the return statement to copy.
I see that you're using using a custom Arithmetic protocol to constraint the generic.
My approach would be to declare 2 required methods in that protocol: toDouble() and fromDouble(), and implement both in Float, Double and Int extensions. Note that fromDouble() should be a static method.
This way you can convert T to Double, hence be able to use sqrt(), and convert back from Double to T.
Last, there's a bug in your code: if left is an empty vector, the function will crash, because the code in the loop will never be executed, so result will keep its nil initial value. The forced unwrapping in the return statement will fail, causing the exception.
There is no generic sqrt in Swift. But you can make your own generic.
import Foundation // for sqrt sqrtf
public func sqrt<T:FloatingPointType>(v:T) -> T {
if let vv = v as? Double {
return sqrt(vv) as! T
}
if let vv = v as? Float {
return sqrtf(vv) as! T
}
preconditionFailure()
}
print(sqrt(Float(9))) // == 3
print(sqrt(Double(9))) // == 3
This is a very simple example, but how would I do something similar to:
let fact = |x: u32| {
match x {
0 => 1,
_ => x * fact(x - 1),
}
};
I know that this specific example can be easily done with iteration, but I'm wondering if it's possible to make a recursive function in Rust for more complicated things (such as traversing trees) or if I'm required to use my own stack instead.
There are a few ways to do this.
You can put closures into a struct and pass this struct to the closure. You can even define structs inline in a function:
fn main() {
struct Fact<'s> { f: &'s dyn Fn(&Fact, u32) -> u32 }
let fact = Fact {
f: &|fact, x| if x == 0 {1} else {x * (fact.f)(fact, x - 1)}
};
println!("{}", (fact.f)(&fact, 5));
}
This gets around the problem of having an infinite type (a function that takes itself as an argument) and the problem that fact isn't yet defined inside the closure itself when one writes let fact = |x| {...} and so one can't refer to it there.
Another option is to just write a recursive function as a fn item, which can also be defined inline in a function:
fn main() {
fn fact(x: u32) -> u32 { if x == 0 {1} else {x * fact(x - 1)} }
println!("{}", fact(5));
}
This works fine if you don't need to capture anything from the environment.
One more option is to use the fn item solution but explicitly pass the args/environment you want.
fn main() {
struct FactEnv { base_case: u32 }
fn fact(env: &FactEnv, x: u32) -> u32 {
if x == 0 {env.base_case} else {x * fact(env, x - 1)}
}
let env = FactEnv { base_case: 1 };
println!("{}", fact(&env, 5));
}
All of these work with Rust 1.17 and have probably worked since version 0.6. The fn's defined inside fns are no different to those defined at the top level, except they are only accessible within the fn they are defined inside.
As of Rust 1.62 (July 2022), there's still no direct way to recurse in a closure. As the other answers have pointed out, you need at least a bit of indirection, like passing the closure to itself as an argument, or moving it into a cell after creating it. These things can work, but in my opinion they're kind of gross, and they're definitely hard for Rust beginners to follow. If you want to use recursion but you have to have a closure, for example because you need something that implements FnOnce() to use with thread::spawn, then I think the cleanest approach is to use a regular fn function for the recursive part and to wrap it in a non-recursive closure that captures the environment. Here's an example:
let x = 5;
let fact = || {
fn helper(arg: u64) -> u64 {
match arg {
0 => 1,
_ => arg * helper(arg - 1),
}
}
helper(x)
};
assert_eq!(120, fact());
Here's a really ugly and verbose solution I came up with:
use std::{
cell::RefCell,
rc::{Rc, Weak},
};
fn main() {
let weak_holder: Rc<RefCell<Weak<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32>>> =
Rc::new(RefCell::new(Weak::<fn(u32) -> u32>::new()));
let weak_holder2 = weak_holder.clone();
let fact: Rc<dyn Fn(u32) -> u32> = Rc::new(move |x| {
let fact = weak_holder2.borrow().upgrade().unwrap();
if x == 0 {
1
} else {
x * fact(x - 1)
}
});
weak_holder.replace(Rc::downgrade(&fact));
println!("{}", fact(5)); // prints "120"
println!("{}", fact(6)); // prints "720"
}
The advantages of this are that you call the function with the expected signature (no extra arguments needed), it's a closure that can capture variables (by move), it doesn't require defining any new structs, and the closure can be returned from the function or otherwise stored in a place that outlives the scope where it was created (as an Rc<Fn...>) and it still works.
Closure is just a struct with additional contexts. Therefore, you can do this to achieve recursion (suppose you want to do factorial with recursive mutable sum):
#[derive(Default)]
struct Fact {
ans: i32,
}
impl Fact {
fn call(&mut self, n: i32) -> i32 {
if n == 0 {
self.ans = 1;
return 1;
}
self.call(n - 1);
self.ans *= n;
self.ans
}
}
To use this struct, just:
let mut fact = Fact::default();
let ans = fact.call(5);