syntax: enable attributes and cfg on struct fields by Ralith · Pull Request #38814 · rust-lang/rust

Ralith · 2017-01-04T04:45:14Z

This enables conditional compilation of field initializers in a struct literal, simplifying construction of structs whose fields are themselves conditionally present. For example, the intializer for the constant in the following becomes legal, and has the intuitive effect:

structFoo{#[cfg(unix)]bar:(),}constFOO:Foo = Foo{#[cfg(unix)]bar:(),};

It's not clear to me whether this calls for the full RFC process, but the implementation was simple enough that I figured I'd begin the conversation with code.

rust-highfive · 2017-01-04T04:45:27Z

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nrc (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

nrc · 2017-01-04T07:52:36Z

cc @rust-lang/lang are we happy to add this? Given that we allow cfg on struct fields in decls, it makes sense to me to allow them in struct lits. This seems minor enough that we don't need an RFC. Thoughts?

nrc · 2017-01-04T07:54:00Z

Hmm, actually this allows all attributes on fields in struct lits. That still seems ok to me, but not as much of a slam dunk as I thought.

nrc · 2017-01-04T07:55:00Z

@Ralith the code looks OK to me, it does need a few tests though.

Ralith · 2017-01-04T07:57:10Z

Re: other attributes: Would it make sense to be more restrictive? Are there any other locations in the language where cfg is permitted but other attributes are not?

Beginning work on tests now.

aturon · 2017-01-04T17:14:05Z

@nrc I'm in favor of this change. In general, we've been moving to add attributes everywhere unless there's ambiguity/hard to discern meaning (as we saw with expressions).

Mark-Simulacrum · 2017-01-04T19:22:26Z

Is using cfg on expressions and/or statements stable? It seems like this might cause problems if that isn't available; since that would require duplicating entire functions for each platform combination.

In general, though, I'm in favor. I'm slightly concerned we're moving in the direction of C/C++, where libraries like OpenSSL have a large quantity of fields being "optional" and disabled on certain platforms and/or with certain features, which to some extent heightens complexity for users. I believe @sfackler might have some relevant thoughts on this as he manages the bindings for OpenSSL.

sfackler · 2017-01-04T19:25:37Z

This doesn't really matter for rust-openssl since we never actually create those structs. I definitely agree that conditionally defining public-facing fields is a pain, though doing that for enum variants is fairly common. On the other hand, conditionally defining internal fields can be pretty nice (e.g. https://github.com/brson/error-chain/blob/master/src/lib.rs#L458)

Ralith · 2017-01-04T19:36:28Z

For illustration, this patch was inspired by the awkwardness of my employing exactly that pattern in my experimental tokio-based window/input system binding, in which I'm trying to provide a uniform interface dispatching over a set of concrete implementations that differs between platforms. Perhaps there's a better way to accomplish this, but this certainly seems to be the most obvious.

Notably, this change alone reduces the need for duplicating entire functions (e.g. init_evdev) in the linked code, though I was able to keep the overhead linear in the number of backends.

nikomatsakis · 2017-01-04T20:36:00Z

I am in favor of this change.

nikomatsakis · 2017-01-04T20:37:47Z

@rfcbot fcp merge

The proposal here is to allow attributes on struct fields. This is a relatively small extension to the general trend of allowing attributes on statements and so forth. @nrc is proposing that we approve this (with a feature gate, naturally) without an FCP. I'm in favor since an RFC feels like overkill and we have a big enough backlog as it is. What do you think, @rust-lang/lang?

rfcbot · 2017-01-04T20:51:13Z

Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

nrc · 2017-01-05T00:18:32Z

Re: other attributes: Would it make sense to be more restrictive? Are there any other locations in the language where cfg is permitted but other attributes are not?

I do not think this makes sense, we should allow all attributes, including cfg (sorry for the confusion in my earlier comments).

@Ralith could you add a feature gate to this PR please?

Ralith · 2017-01-05T05:48:47Z

Added a feature gate struct_field_attributes and added previously missing adjustments to Visitor to walk the new attribute location.

jseyfried · 2017-01-05T06:00:25Z

I believe field.attrs.iter() can be just field.attrs.

It cannot. ThinVec does not implement IntoIterator. &ThinVec also does not, leaving only this approach.

Oh right -- field.attrs.deref() should work then, or just leave as is.

pnkfelix · 2017-01-05T20:36:08Z

@rfcbot concern struct-fields-in-patterns

Is the proposed extension intended to cover fields in patterns as well? I cannot tell from skimming the code, and in any case I do not see any test coverage of fields in patterns.

By that "fields in patterns" mean the following:

structS{x:i32,y:i32}fnmain(){let s = S{x:10,y:20};match s {S{x:11,// this is a field in a pattern ...y: the_y // ... and this is a field in a binding pattern} => println!("the_y: {}", the_y),S{x: the_x,y:20} => println!("the_x: {}", the_x),S{ .. } => {}}}

(and of course such patterns can also be used with let, if let , et cetera)

nikomatsakis · 2017-01-05T21:53:27Z

@pnkfelix good question! Seems like the answer should be "yes, those ought to be supported too", right? I guess I expect fields to be configurable at all places where fields appear (definition, struct literal, patterns)

Ralith · 2017-01-06T08:26:58Z

@pnkfelix That was not the intention, but I agree that it makes sense. I'm working on implementing it now. Getting #[cfg(...)] working there is taking slightly more effort than expected.

jseyfried · 2017-01-07T22:45:38Z

nit: _ => expr_kind,

jseyfried · 2017-01-07T22:46:37Z

I believe you could derive HasAttrs for Spanned<ast::FieldPat>, remove configure_struct_pat_field, and gated feature check in this closure.

jseyfried · 2017-01-07T22:49:22Z

I think this would be easier to use as configure_pat.

jseyfried · 2017-01-07T22:51:38Z

It's more efficient and idiomatic to do the following here:
pattern.map(|mut pattern| {// ... pattern })
(if you did configure_pat instead of configure_pat_kind, the .map would be there)

jseyfried · 2017-01-07T22:52:07Z

Same here, also would be solved by having configure_pat.

jseyfried

@Ralith thanks!
Could you add a feature gate test?
Other than that, r=me pending #38814 (comment).

jseyfried · 2017-01-08T09:59:19Z

Perhaps we could refactor out this gated feature check (and the one below) into self.visit_struct_field_attrs() (c.f. self.visit_expr_attrs()) and then refactor away self.configure_struct_expr_field() and self.configure_struct_pat_field()?

jseyfried · 2017-01-08T10:03:40Z

nit: _ => {} is more idiomatic (or if let)

jseyfried · 2017-01-11T08:01:35Z

This PR is blocked on #38814 (comment).
@pnkfelix This now supports #[cfg] on struct field patterns.
cc @withoutboats

pnkfelix · 2017-01-11T17:12:34Z

@rfcbot resolved struct-fields-in-patterns

pnkfelix · 2017-01-11T17:12:46Z

@rfcbot reviewed

jseyfried · 2017-01-12T05:36:15Z

@bors r+

bors · 2017-01-12T05:36:16Z

📌 Commit 7972c19 has been approved by jseyfried

bors · 2017-01-12T16:45:34Z

⌛ Testing commit 7972c19 with merge 78ccca8...

bors · 2017-01-12T18:31:53Z

💔 Test failed - status-travis

alexcrichton · 2017-01-12T18:36:03Z

@bors: retry * osx linker segfaulted #38878

…

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:31 AM, bors ***@***.***> wrote: 💔 Test failed - status-travis <https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/builds/191366421> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#38814 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAD95A9rlDn0bPkS9WXIyx2_6agW51Wtks5rRnGbgaJpZM4LaSVF> .

bors · 2017-01-12T20:43:39Z

⌛ Testing commit 7972c19 with merge e357178...

syntax: enable attributes and cfg on struct fields This enables conditional compilation of field initializers in a struct literal, simplifying construction of structs whose fields are themselves conditionally present. For example, the intializer for the constant in the following becomes legal, and has the intuitive effect: ```rust struct Foo { #[cfg(unix)] bar: (), } const FOO: Foo = Foo { #[cfg(unix)] bar: (), }; ``` It's not clear to me whether this calls for the full RFC process, but the implementation was simple enough that I figured I'd begin the conversation with code.

bors · 2017-01-12T22:51:55Z

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: jseyfried
Pushing e357178 to master...

colin-kiegel · 2017-04-07T21:01:06Z

I couldn't find a tracking issue to stabilise this. How is the procedure for stabilisation? This would be really nice to have! :-)

mbrubeck · 2017-05-01T20:59:57Z

Submitted #41681 as a tracking issue for stability.

rust-highfive assigned nrc Jan 4, 2017

nrc added the T-lang Relevant to the language team label Jan 4, 2017

Ralith force-pushed the cfg-fields branch from 0e6ec3a to 22235f7Compare January 4, 2017 09:23

jseyfried reviewed Jan 5, 2017
View reviewed changes

Ralith changed the title ~~syntax: configurable struct literal fields~~syntax: enable attributes and cfg on struct fieldsJan 7, 2017

Ralith force-pushed the cfg-fields branch from bde154b to 88887dbCompare January 7, 2017 22:15

jseyfried reviewed Jan 7, 2017
View reviewed changes

jseyfried assigned jseyfried and unassigned nrc Jan 8, 2017

jseyfried reviewed Jan 8, 2017
View reviewed changes

syntax: struct field attributes and cfg
7972c19

Ralith force-pushed the cfg-fields branch from 010cb91 to 7972c19Compare January 12, 2017 05:34

bors merged commit 7972c19 into rust-lang:masterJan 12, 2017

This was referenced Jan 12, 2017
Implement kind="static-nobundle" (RFC 1717) #38426
Merged
calling convention for MSP430 interrupts #38465
Merged

est31 mentioned this pull request Jan 12, 2017
Make tidy check for lang gate tests #38914
Merged

This was referenced Jan 12, 2017
LeakSanitizer, ThreadSanitizer, AddressSanitizer and MemorySanitizer support #38699
Merged
Implement #[proc_macro_attribute]#38842
Merged

jseyfried added relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. and removed relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. labels Jan 17, 2017

Emilgardis mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2017
Document all features in the reference #38643
Closed
17 tasks

This was referenced Apr 19, 2017
Add rustfmt support for attribute on struct literal field #41392
Closed
Add support for attribute on struct literal field rust-lang/rustfmt#1462
Closed

mbrubeck added B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. and removed B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. labels May 1, 2017

mbrubeck mentioned this pull request May 1, 2017
Tracking issue for struct_field_attributes #41681
Closed
4 tasks

rbtying mentioned this pull request May 12, 2017
struct_field_attributes disappear when running rustfmtrust-lang/rustfmt#1535
Closed

ehuss mentioned this pull request May 4, 2022
Remove OuterAttributes for StructPatternEtCeterarust-lang/reference#1200
Closed

coderabbitaiBot mentioned this pull request Aug 6, 2026
Client-side routing via local hash ring (#537) andrewdavidmackenzie/anna#545
Merged

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

rust-highfive commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

nrc commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

nrc commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

nrc commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

aturon commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

Mark-Simulacrum commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

sfackler commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nikomatsakis commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

nikomatsakis commented Jan 4, 2017

Uh oh!

rfcbot commented Jan 4, 2017• edited by nrc Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

nrc commented Jan 5, 2017

Uh oh!

Ralith commented Jan 5, 2017

Uh oh!

jseyfriedJan 5, 2017• edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 5, 2017

Uh oh!

nikomatsakis commented Jan 5, 2017

Uh oh!

Ralith commented Jan 6, 2017

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jseyfried left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

jseyfried commented Jan 11, 2017

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 11, 2017

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 11, 2017

Uh oh!

jseyfried commented Jan 12, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 12, 2017

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 12, 2017

Uh oh!

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017•
edited
Loading

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017•
edited
Loading

Ralith commented Jan 4, 2017•
edited
Loading

rfcbot commented Jan 4, 2017•
edited by nrc
Loading

jseyfriedJan 5, 2017•
edited
Loading