Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
645 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

rust - Can I avoid eager ambiguity resolution for trait implementations with generics?

Consider the following Rust code [playground]:

use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::hash::Hash;

trait Foo<K> {
    const FOO: i32;
}

impl<K, K_, V> Foo<HashMap<K_, V>> for HashMap<K, V>
where
    K: Hash + Eq + Into<K_>,
{
    const FOO: i32 = 1;
}

impl<K, V, V_> Foo<HashMap<K, V_>> for HashMap<K, V>
where
    K: Hash + Eq,
    V: Into<V_>,
{
    const FOO: i32 = 2;
}

fn main() {}

(The const is not relevant, I'd like the code to compile with fns too).

It fails to compile with the error:

error[E0119]: conflicting implementations of trait `Foo<std::collections::HashMap<_, _>>` for type `std::collections::HashMap<_, _>`:
  --> src/main.rs:15:1
   |
8  | / impl<K, K_, V> Foo<HashMap<K_, V>> for HashMap<K, V>
9  | | where
10 | |     K: Hash + Eq + Into<K_>,
11 | | {
12 | |     const FOO: i32 = 1;
13 | | }
   | |_- first implementation here
14 | 
15 | / impl<K, V, V_> Foo<HashMap<K, V_>> for HashMap<K, V>
16 | | where
17 | |     K: Hash + Eq,
18 | |     V: Into<V_>,
19 | | {
20 | |     const FOO: i32 = 2;
21 | | }
   | |_^ conflicting implementation for `std::collections::HashMap<_, _>`

As I understand it, the problem is that there is an ambiguity here - which implementation should be picked if both are legal? Ideally I'd like to have the following:

  1. The above code (or some work around) should compile fine.
  2. At the call site, if there is only one impl possible for the given type, then that one is picked.
  3. At the call site, if there are multiple impls possible, then it is an error (coherence issues).

More succinctly, I want ambiguity resolution to be done at the call site, rather than at the definition site. Is it possible to have this behavior?

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

Can I avoid eager ambiguity resolution for trait implementations with generics?

No.

Is it possible to have [ambiguity resolution to be done at the call site, rather than at the definition site]?

No.


There's a (long-delayed) RFC for specialization that will allow overlapping trait implementations, but only when one of them is more specific than the others. I don't believe this is true for your case, so it would not help.

See also:


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

1.4m articles

1.4m replys

5 comments

56.8k users

...