Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
185 lines (144 loc) · 6.18 KB

tuples.md

File metadata and controls

185 lines (144 loc) · 6.18 KB
Raw

Tuples

Table of contents

Overview

The primary composite type involves simple aggregation of other types as a tuple, called a "product type" in formal type theory:

fn DoubleBoth(x: i32, y: i32) -> (i32, i32) {
  return (2 * x, 2 * y);
}

This function returns a tuple of two integers represented by the type (i32, i32). The expression to return it uses a special tuple syntax to build a tuple within an expression: (<expression>, <expression>). This is actually the same syntax in both cases. The return type is a tuple expression, and the first and second elements are expressions referring to the i32 type. The only difference is the type of these expressions. Both are tuples, but one is a tuple of types.

Element access

Element access uses a syntax similar to field access, with an element index instead of a field name:

fn Sum(x: i32, y: i32) -> i32 {
  var t: (i32, i32) = (x, y);
  return t.0 + t.1;
}

A parenthesized template constant expression can also be used to index a tuple:

fn Choose(template N:! i32) -> i32 {
  return (1, 2, 3).(N % 3);
}

Empty tuples

() is the empty tuple. This is used in other parts of the design, such as functions, where a type with a single value is needed.

Trailing commas and single-element tuples

The final element in a tuple literal may be followed by a trailing comma, such as (1, 2,). This trailing comma is optional in tuples with two or more elements, and mandatory in a tuple with a single element: (x,) is a one-tuple, whereas (x) is a parenthesized single expression.

Tuple of types and tuple types

A tuple of types can be used in contexts where a type is needed. This is made possible by a built-in implicit conversion: a tuple can be implicitly converted to type type if all of its elements can be converted to type type, and the result of the conversion is the corresponding tuple type.

For example, (i32, i32) is a value of type (type, type), which is not a type but can be implicitly converted to a type. (i32, i32) as type can be used to explicitly refer to the corresponding tuple type, which is the type of expressions such as (1 as i32, 2 as i32). However, this is rarely necessary, as contexts requiring a type will implicitly convert their operand to a type:

// OK, both (i32, i32) values are implicitly converted to `type`.
fn F(x: (i32, i32)) -> (i32, i32);

Operations performed field-wise

Like some other aggregate data types like struct types, there are some operations are defined for tuples field-wise:

  • initialization
  • assignment
  • equality and inequality comparison
  • ordered comparison
  • implicit conversion for argument passing
  • destruction

For binary operations, the two tuples must have the same number of components and the operation must be defined for the corresponding component types of the two tuples.

Pattern matching

Tuple values can be matched using a tuple pattern, which is written as a tuple of element patterns:

let tup: (i32, i32, i32) = (1, 2, 3);
match (tup) {
  case (a: i32, 2, var c: i32) => {
    c = a;
    return c + 1;
  }
}

Open questions

Tuple slicing

Tuples could support multiple indices and slicing to restructure tuple elements:

fn Baz(x: i32, y: i32, z: i32) -> (i32, i32) {
  var t1: (i32, i32, i32) = (x, y, z);
  var t2: (i32, i32, i32) = t1.((2, 1, 0));
  return t2.(0 .. 2);
}

This code would first reverse the tuple, and then extract a slice using a half-open range of indices.

Slicing ranges

The intent of 0 .. 2 is to be syntax for forming a sequence of indices based on the half-open range [0, 2). There are a bunch of questions we'll need to answer here:

  • Is this valid anywhere? Only some places?
  • What is the sequence?
    • If it is a tuple of indices, maybe that solves the above issue, and unlike function call indexing with multiple indices is different from indexing with a tuple of indexes.
  • Do we need syntax for a closed range (... perhaps, unclear if that ends up aligned or in conflict with other likely uses of ... in pattern matching)?
  • All of these syntaxes are also very close to 0.2, is that similarity of syntax OK?
    • Do we want to require the .. to be surrounded by whitespace to minimize that collision?

Alternatives considered

References