Implement set complement and universe for bitflags

[jcmoyer]

I feel that this is a very vital, missing piece of functionality. This adds on to #13072.

Only bits used in the definition of the bitflag are considered for the universe set. This is a bit safer than simply inverting all of the bits in the wrapped value.

bitflags!(flags Flags:u32{FlagA = 0x00000001,FlagB = 0x00000010,FlagC = 0x00000100,FlagABC = FlagA.bits
| FlagB.bits
| FlagC.bits
})
...
// `Not` implements set complementassert!(!(FlagB | FlagC) == FlagA);// `all` and `is_all` are the inverses of `empty` and `is_empty`assert!(Flags::all() - FlagA == !FlagA);assert!(FlagABC.is_all());

[jcmoyer]

The Not trait (no matter how you qualify it) doesn't seem to be available inside of libstd macros. I have no idea what is going on here. If I remove the attribute forwarding part of the macro this error goes away and a parse error appears in a totally unrelated module. Might be a macro_rules related bug.

The code compiles and all tests pass when the module is used standalone.

[alexcrichton]

Is there precedent for a universe method? I'm not sure I've heard of that before, but it does seem useful!

This also has a travis failure which will need to get fixed, it looks like the Not trait needs to be imported in std::io

[sfackler]

Universe is a pretty standard term in set theory. I'm not sure if there's a different term used for this kind of thing, though.

[jcmoyer]

@alexcrichton: D'oh! I didn't realize the macro was already being used elsewhere in the stdlib. I'll fix this immediately. It was a late night. :)

My decision to use the term universe was based on my discussion with thestinger in #13072. After a bit of research I came across this and ran with it. I'm not aware of it being used in other programming languages.

[sfackler]

One possible alternative to universe is all, which is what Java's EnumSet uses: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/EnumSet.html#allOf(java.lang.Class)

[brendanzab]

A common use case would also contain masks. If so, would this be correct? We could add another section to the macro perhaps) eg. flags { ... } masks { ... }

[brendanzab]

According to @alexcrichton, masks are usually subsets of the universal set, so this shouldn't be a problem. I think we should mention though in the macro's comment that the universe is not statically checked (some C bindings are probably weird like that), and in that case it is up to the user to define those outside the macro, eg. static NotInUniverse: Flags = Flags { bits: ??? }.

[brendanzab]

Maybe we could auto-generate tests for the validity of the universe and complement functions?

[jcmoyer]

@bjz: Could you give me an example where universe or complement would return an invalid value? How would you test for validity?

[brendanzab]

@alexcrichton The universal set is a common term in set theory. As long as it is documented, I think it is fine.

[emberian]

I think the name "all" would be better. It's certainly what I would expect, and reads more sensibly without any math background: "all - the set of all flags", "is_all - returns true if every flag is set"

[brendanzab]

Yeah, all is probably a better name. Less fun though!

[aturon]

This is great, and a clever implementation! I'd vote for the less fun, but more obvious all.

[jcmoyer]

Renamed universe -> all.

[brendanzab]

Might need to rebase this. Then I can r+.

[jcmoyer]

@bjz: Done.

[alexcrichton]

Could you squash the two commits together, other than that, this looks good to go!

[jcmoyer]

@alexcrichton: sure thing!