CODEWITHSUNDEEP
immutabilityrust
Lionel Parreaux
Lionel Parreaux

Reputation: 1225

How can I force a struct's field to always be immutable in Rust?

In Rust, you don't specify mutability inside a struct, but it is inherited from the variable binding. That's great, but is it possible to force a field to be always immutable, even when the root is mutable?

Something like this hypothetical syntax:

struct A {
    immut s: Shape, // immutable by design
    bla: Bla, // this field inheriting (im)mutability
}
let mut a = make_a();
a.s = x/*...*/; // illegal

This would help to maintain nice semantic restrictions in a program, just like Java's final does (in a very limited way).

Also, we could imagine this kind of struct having some non-owning references to internal immutable data, taking advantage of this immutability...

Upvotes: 42

Views: 29923

Answers (6)

user986730
user986730

Reputation: 1396

Probably the easiest way to achieve this today is by using the readonly crate from prolific developer David Tolnay (author of serde and many others). From the github documentation:

This crate provides an attribute macro to expose struct fields that are readable and writable from within the same module but readable only outside the module.

#[readonly::make]
pub struct S {
    // This field can be read (but not written) by super.
    #[readonly]
    pub(super) readable: i32,

    // This field can be neither read nor written by other modules.
    private: i32,
}

Upvotes: 7

Ibraheem Ahmed
Ibraheem Ahmed

Reputation: 13578

In many cases an associated constant achieves the desired behaviour:

struct Foo { blah: Blah }

impl Foo {
    const S: Shape = Shape { x: 1, y: 1 };
}

Of course, constants cannot be set on creation, they are set at compile-time. Making the field private as explained in other answers will work if dynamicism is required.

Upvotes: 0

danthedaniel
danthedaniel

Reputation: 469

You can create a struct and only implement the Deref trait for it. Without the DerefMut trait it won't be possible for contained values to be mutated.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/ops/trait.Deref.html

This way the compiler will make the member usable as if it's not wrapped in another struct, no need for any written getter method call.

use std::ops::Deref;

/// A container for values that can only be deref'd immutably.
struct Immutable<T> {
    value: T,
}

impl<T> Immutable<T> {
    pub fn new(value: T) -> Self {
        Immutable { value }
    }
}

impl<T> Deref for Immutable<T> {
    type Target = T;

    fn deref(&self) -> &Self::Target {
        &self.value
    }
}

struct Foo {
    bar: Immutable<Vec<u8>>,
    baz: usize,
}

impl Foo {
    pub fn new(vec: Vec<u8>) -> Self {
        Foo {
            bar: Immutable::new(vec),
            baz: 1337,
        }
    }

    pub fn mutate(&mut self) {
        self.bar.push(0); // This will cause a compiler error
    }
}

|
|         self.bar.push(0);
|         ^^^^^^^^ cannot borrow as mutable
|
= help: trait `DerefMut` is required to modify through a dereference, but it is not implemented for `runnable::immutable::Immutable<std::vec::Vec<u8>>`

Upvotes: 19

Daniel Fath
Daniel Fath

Reputation: 18109

It's impossible to have immutability of a single field. That was an option in an ancient version of Rust (think before 0.8), but it was dropped because the rules confused a LOT of people. How was it confusing, you might ask? Think about it like this: if a field is declared mutable and struct is declared mutable and the reference used was an immutable reference (&) then the field is _______.

The best, as Lily Ballard noted, is that you can declare your Shape field as private and make a getter method using impl A {...}. 

mod inner {
    pub struct A {
        s: i32, // can't be seen outside of module
        pub bla: i32,
    }

    impl A {
        pub fn new() -> Self {
            Self { s: 0, bla: 42 }
        }

        pub fn get_s(&self) -> i32 {
            self.s
        }
    }
}

let mut a = inner::A::new();
a.s = 42; // illegal
println!("{}", a.s); // also illegal
println!("{}", a.get_s()); // could be made to serve as a read-only method

error[E0616]: field `s` of struct `main::inner::A` is private
  --> src/main.rs:20:5
   |
20 |     a.s = 42; // illegal
   |     ^^^

error[E0616]: field `s` of struct `main::inner::A` is private
  --> src/main.rs:21:20
   |
21 |     println!("{}", a.s); // also illegal
   |                    ^^^

There is proposition that might drop notions of mutability and immutability completely (you can't say a struct never changes). See Niko's explanation for that change.

Upvotes: 31

Frank Schwidom
Frank Schwidom

Reputation: 146

A Solution could be to have a more general approach:

pub struct Immutable<T> {
    value : T ,
}

impl<T> Immutable<T> {

    pub fn new(value : T) -> Immutable<T> {
        Immutable { value : value }
    }

    pub fn get( &self) -> &T { &self.value }
}

Now it is possible to use the Immutable struct in every case for every other type.

Given this into a module avoids changing the content of the Immutable object. It is still possible to change the variable which holds the Immutable object itself by overwriting it by a new Object but you should notice it by the Immutable::new statement and so you can avoid using it.

Upvotes: 1

Lily Ballard
Lily Ballard

Reputation: 185821

You can't force immutability on a field. How would the struct mutate its own value when necessary?

What you can do is make the field private and expose a getter method to return a reference to it (or to copy/clone the value).

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions