CODEWITHSUNDEEP
rust
Fraser
Fraser

Reputation: 78290

How is there a conflicting implementation of `From` when using a generic type?

I'm trying to implement an error enum which can contain an error associated with one of our traits like this:

trait Storage {
    type Error;
}

enum MyError<S: Storage> {
    StorageProblem(S::Error),
}

I have also tried to implement the From trait to allow construction of MyError from an instance of a Storage::Error:

impl<S: Storage> From<S::Error> for MyError<S> {
    fn from(error: S::Error) -> MyError<S> {
        MyError::StorageProblem(error)
    }
}

(playground)

However this fails to compile:

error[E0119]: conflicting implementations of trait `std::convert::From<MyError<_>>` for type `MyError<_>`:
 --> src/lib.rs:9:1
  |
9 | impl<S: Storage> From<S::Error> for MyError<S> {
  | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  |
  = note: conflicting implementation in crate `core`:
          - impl<T> std::convert::From<T> for T;

I don't understand why the compiler reckons this has already been implemented. The error message is telling me that there's already an implementation of From<MyError<_>> (which there is), but I'm not trying to implement that here - I'm trying to implement From<S::Error> and MyError is not the same type as S::Error from what I can see.

Am I missing something fundamental to generics here?

Upvotes: 41

Views: 13005

Answers (2)

Shepmaster
Shepmaster

Reputation: 430634

A workaround for the coherence issue is to use some other method or trait.

In the specific posted example involving Results, you can use Result::map_err to perform the conversion yourself. You can then use the transformed Result with ?:

fn example<S: Storage>(s: S) -> Result<i32, MyError<S>> {
    s.do_a_thing().map_err(MyError::StorageProblem)?;
    Ok(42)
}

This solution is also valuable when there are error variants that have the same underlying Error, such as if you want to separate "file opening" and "file reading" errors, both of which are io::Error.

In other cases, you might need to create a brand new method on your type or an alternate trait:

struct Wrapper<T>(T);

// Instead of this
//
// impl<T, U> From<Wrapper<T>> for Wrapper<U>
// where
//     T: Into<U>,
// {
//     fn from(other: Wrapper<T>) -> Self {
//         Wrapper(other.0.into())
//     }
// }

// Use an inherent method

impl<T> Wrapper<T> {
    fn from_another<U>(other: Wrapper<U>) -> Self
    where
        U: Into<T>,
    {
        Wrapper(other.0.into())
    }
}

// Or create your own trait

trait MyFrom<T> {
    fn my_from(other: T) -> Self;
}

impl<T, U> MyFrom<Wrapper<T>> for Wrapper<U>
where
    T: Into<U>,
{
    fn my_from(other: Wrapper<T>) -> Self {
        Wrapper(other.0.into())
    }
}

Upvotes: 15

huon
huon

Reputation: 102066

The problem here is someone may implement Storage so that the From impl you have written overlaps with the impl in the standard library of impl<T> From<T> for T (that is, anything can be converted to itself).

Specifically,

struct Tricky;

impl Storage for Tricky {
    type Error = MyError<Tricky>;
}

(The set-up here means this doesn't actually compile—MyError<Tricky> is infinitely large—but that error is unrelated to the reasoning about impls/coherence/overlap, and indeed small changes to MyError can make it compile without changing the fundamental problem, e.g. adding a Box like StorageProblem(Box<S::Error>),.)

If we substitute Tricky in place of S in your impl, we get:

impl From<MyError<Tricky>> for MyError<Tricky> {
    ...
}

This impl exactly matches the self-conversion one with T == MyError<Tricky>, and hence the compiler wouldn't know which one to choose. Instead of making an arbitrary/random choice, the Rust compiler avoids situations like this, and thus the original code must be rejected due to this risk.

This coherence restriction can definitely be annoying, and is one of reasons that specialisation is a much-anticipated feature: essentially allows manually instructing the compiler how to handle overlap... at least, one of the extensions to the current restricted form allows that.

Upvotes: 24

Related Questions