Trait alias.

[hadronized]

Rendered

---

Trait alias would enable aliasing traits.

Useful especially when we want to lift the name from generic to specific (a bit like Result on a lot of modules, but for traits):

mod gen {
  trait Foo<T> {
    // ...
  }
}

mod spec {
  struct Bck0 {}

  trait Foo as gen::Foo<Bck0>;
}

[mcarton]

Why not trait TraitAlias = Trait similar to the type keyword's syntax?
If I came across trait Foo as Bar I would probably read it as Bar being an alias for Foo.

[durka]

I like the = syntax to mirror type aliases as well.

[hadronized]

Yeah, I think it’s a good idea as well, as would read the other way around, yeah.

[durka]

Note that this is sugar for

trait Foo: gen::Foo<Bck0> {}
impl<T: gen::Foo<Bck0>> Foo for T {}

So since the functionality is already supported, it makes sense to add syntax. The = syntax would be intuitively analogous to type alias syntax (indeed, I've seen people ask why it doesn't work already). 👍

[hadronized]

@durka, hm, are you sure it safely desugars to that? It creates a brand new trait, not really an alias.

[eddyb]

@durka You can't implement Foo with gen::Foo's methods though.

[durka]

You're right, the trait aliasing that I demonstrated only works for bounds. I didn't realize that this RFC would allow impl blocks as well. The RFC could benefit from an example!

[Diggsey]

@durka More importantly, the Foo and gen::Foo<Bck0> trait objects are incompatible, since rust does not support converting between trait objects.

I prefer the trait X = Y syntax for symmetry with type aliases, and it should support generics too, eg. trait X<T> = Y<T, Foo>

Also, will this be able to support multiple traits, ie. can I do trait X = Y + Z? While powerful and very useful it would be confusing that you couldn't use trait X as a trait object.

[hadronized]

I think trait X = Y + Z should be supported as well, a bit like Haskell with the ConstraintKinds ghc extension that can be used to enable constraint aliasing (in which you find typeclasses).

[durka]

The thing about trait X = Y + Z; is this:

In the simpler case of trait A = B;, then either A is a separate trait or it isn't. The "desugaring" I proposed (trait A: B {} impl<T: B> A for B {}) would make A and B separate traits so you wouldn't be able to cast between the trait objects. But it sounds like this RFC is going in the direction that they would actually be synonyms, so my desugaring doesn't quite work.

But Rust currently doesn't have any way to make a trait object of two non-builtin traits, like &(Y + Z). Therefore something like my desugaring would be the only way to make trait X = Y + Z; work.

Sure, we could have the same syntax do two different things, but that seems weird. It seems to me that for now we should just do trait A = B;, and then in the glorious future when Rust gains the ability to represent &(Y + Z), then trait X = Y + Z; automatically starts working.

[Diggsey]

@durka You're forgetting that traits are not just used as trait objects. trait X = Y + Z can work perfectly fine for static polymorphism, it just means that &X is not a valid trait object (just as &(Y + Z) is not a valid trait object.

[durka]

@Diggsey I didn't forget, but I glossed over it :) For all purposes besides trait objects, my desugaring works and trait X = Y + Z; would be fine. But it seems weird that trait X = sometimes makes an objectifiable trait and sometimes not, depending on the RHS. But I guess that's the same kind of inconsistency as object safety anyway, so perhaps it's not so bad.

[kennytm]

&(X + Y) can be supported if a subset of #1524 is accepted (making &(X + Y) a triple-word fat pointer) 😉

[withoutboats]

What about HRTB? Would this be viable?

trait Bar<'a> { }

trait Foo = for<'a> Bar<'a>;

[eddyb]

@withoutboats From an implementation standpoint, it shouldn't be more difficult than other trait aliases.
And I can certainly see its value, I've noticed people building helper traits for this in various situations.

[solson]

A concrete example for hiding HRTB came up in #rust:

trait FromRef<T> = for<'a> From<&'a T>;

[kennytm]

@solson

Would impl FromRef<u32> for SomeStruct { ... } work? (How would the signature of from be written though?)

Could the compiler auto-translate it to impl<'a> From<&'a u32> for SomeStruct { ... }?

[withoutboats]

I don't know how implementing FromRef would work, and it concerns me.

Here's From<&'a u32>.

impl<'a> From<&'a u32> for u32 {
    fn from(x: &'a u32) -> u32 { *x }
}

Note that the 'a shows up in the fn body. Here is FromRef<u32>:

impl FromRef<u32> for u32 {
    fn from(x: &u32) -> u32 { *x }
}

The normal meaning of this would be to elide a lifetime parameter on the from method, having an incompatible signature with the trait.

Special elisions for implementing HRTB trait aliases don't seem like a good idea to me (and AFAICT can't scale to an HRTB trait alias with multiple higher ranked lifetimes), but not being able to implement a trait alias transparently also seems like a problem.

[Diggsey]

@withoutboats I don't see a problem with not being able to implement a trait alias if you can't implement what it aliases to to start with.

It's not like you can impl for<'a> From<&'a u32> for u32 anyway.

[withoutboats]

impl for<'a> From<&'a u32> is morally equivalent to impl<'a> From<&'a u32> and it presents a pretty serious usability problem if this feature is used to obscure HRTB but it is unclear to users how they could provide an impl that satisfies this trait bound.

[Diggsey]

@withoutboats that's already the case for trait inheritance. For example, you can't implement Eq without implementing PartialEq, and you have to look at the definition of Eq to figure that out. With trait where clauses it can be even more complicated.

[withoutboats]

Sure, but in that case its relatively easy to learn what trait you need to implement. I'm concerned that using this feature to obscure HRTB will lead to a situation where a less expert Rust user sees that they need to implement FromRef, sees in the definition of FromRef trait FromRef<T> = for<'a> From<&'a T>; and then is baffled about how they could implement for<'a> From<&'a T>.

I don't have a solution; HRTB just present a pretty serious accessibility problem in general.

[kennytm]

Current situation:

Ability	Simple trait	HRTB (for<'a> T<'a>)	Composite (X + Y)
Constraint S: T	✓	✓	✓
Impl trait -> impl T	✓	✓	✓
Trait object &T	✓	✓	✗
impl T for S	✓	✗	✗

[durka]

Is type FromRef = for<'a> From<&'a T>; needed if you can write type FromRef<'a> = From<&'a T>;?

[kennytm]

@durka The point is to hide the for<'a> part, just like you can write F: Fn(&u32) -> &u32 without any explicit lifetime.

[nikomatsakis]

I think I'm generally in favor of adding some kind of shorthand for "trait aliases" (or "where-clause aliases", depending on your POV). @aturon and I talked about it recently and we felt like the syntax ought to be modeled on the syntax for declaring a new trait with supertraits, but with = replacing :. So if you had a declaration like this:

trait SymPartialEq<T> = PartialEq<T> where T: PartialEq<Self>;

then you could do:

fn foo<T, U>() where T: SymPartialEq<U>

and it would be equivalent to

fn foo<T, U>() where T: PartialEq<U>, U: PartialEq<T>

I'm not sure what to do about the case where you want just a where-clause though, and no =. I don't like trait Foo<T> where T: Bar<Self>, because it looks too much like a declaration of a new trait. I guess trait Foo<T> = where T: Bar<Self> might be ok.

Not sure if I love the precise syntax here, but there is something nice about the symmetry with supertrait clauses, and the "bias" to always have a Self type, just like regular traits.

It seems good for the more common cases that don't require where clauses, e.g.

trait Foo = Bar + Baz;

[cuviper]

Maybe trait Foo<T> = _ where T: Bar<Self> or trait Foo<T> = * where T: Bar<Self> ?

[durka]

What would be the difference between trait X = where Z; and trait X where Z {}?

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Josh Stone [email protected] wrote:

Maybe trait Foo = _ where T: Bar or trait Foo = * where T:
Bar ?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#1733 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC3nyx6H478DW2EceC6WEyOjopf7O_Uks5q6Pc5gaJpZM4JxjCo
.

[bluss]

How are associated types handled? I commonly use things like trait Scalar : Add<Output=Self> + Copy { } (with more operators).

[clarfonthey]

Haven't read all the comments, but by the existing grammar is trait Trait = ; allowed?

[durka]

It's allowed by the implemented parser and I guess it'll mean the same as `trait Trait {}`.

…

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 1:02 AM, Clar Roʒe ***@***.***> wrote: Haven't read all the comments, but by the existing grammar is trait Trait = ; allowed? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1733 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC3n6PztcUX_tH3XNbrQXb_NLJIXejkks5tY5psgaJpZM4JxjCo> .

[cramertj]

I'd have guessed it would be a bound which accepted all types. If that works, I'd also expect trait Static = 'static; to be a bound which accepted all 'static types.

[durka]

That makes more sense, yes.

…

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:01 AM, Taylor Cramer ***@***.***> wrote: Hm? I'd have guessed it would be a bound which accepted all types. If that works, I'd also expect trait Static = 'static; to be a bound which accepted all 'static types. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1733 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAC3n75MvU_6vy55rh8CKcnRB-xW5CJtks5tY7ZFgaJpZM4JxjCo> .

[Boscop]

Would this also work?

trait Foo<'a> = Bar<'a> + 'a;

It should!

[hadronized]

@Boscop The RFC enables it, yes.