CODEWITHSUNDEEP
rust
SteinFlugel
SteinFlugel

Reputation: 35

Why does Rust's documentation for methods use a separate builder struct as an example?

I was going through the struct and method docs and was wondering why the docs use this example:

struct Circle {
    x: f64,
    y: f64,
    radius: f64,
}

impl Circle {
    fn area(&self) -> f64 {
        std::f64::consts::PI * (self.radius * self.radius)
    }
}

struct CircleBuilder {
    x: f64,
    y: f64,
    radius: f64,
}

impl CircleBuilder {
    fn new() -> CircleBuilder {
        CircleBuilder { x: 0.0, y: 0.0, radius: 1.0, }
    }

    fn x(&mut self, coordinate: f64) -> &mut CircleBuilder {
        self.x = coordinate;
        self
    }

    fn y(&mut self, coordinate: f64) -> &mut CircleBuilder {
        self.y = coordinate;
        self
    }

    fn radius(&mut self, radius: f64) -> &mut CircleBuilder {
        self.radius = radius;
        self
    }

    fn finalize(&self) -> Circle {
        Circle { x: self.x, y: self.y, radius: self.radius }
    }
}

fn main() {
    let c = CircleBuilder::new()
            .x(1.0)
            .y(2.0)
            .radius(2.0)
            .finalize();

    println!("area: {}", c.area());
    println!("x: {}", c.x);
    println!("y: {}", c.y);
}

My slightly modified code is smaller and appears to do the exact same thing:

struct Circle {
    x: f64,
    y: f64,
    radius: f64,
}


impl Circle {
    fn new() -> Circle {
        Circle { x: 0.0, y: 0.0, radius: 1.0, }
    }

    fn x(&mut self, coordinate: f64) -> &mut Circle {
        self.x = coordinate;
        self
    }

    fn y(&mut self, coordinate: f64) -> &mut Circle {
        self.y = coordinate;
        self
    }

    fn radius(&mut self, radius: f64) -> &mut Circle {
        self.radius = radius;
        self
    }

    fn area(&self) -> f64 {
        std::f64::consts::PI * (self.radius * self.radius)
    }

    fn finalize(&self) -> Circle {
        Circle { x: self.x, y: self.y, radius: self.radius }
    }
}

fn main() {
    let c = Circle::new()
            .x(1.0)
            .y(2.0)
            .radius(2.0)
            .finalize();

    println!("area: {}", c.area());
    println!("x: {}", c.x);
    println!("y: {}", c.y);
}

Upvotes: 3

Views: 157

Answers (2)

Chris Emerson
Chris Emerson

Reputation: 14051

In general, a Circle and a CircleBuilder are not the same thing, so it makes sense to treat them as different types. In your example, once a Circle has been "finalized", there's actually nothing stopping someone from calling the builder methods (x, y, radius) - there's nothing enforcing it. It may also be unclear to users which methods are for building, and which are for use on a constructed object. Rust has a type system which can be used to statically avoid mistakes like this - it makes sense to use it!

In other cases, the finalize step may be less trivial - e.g. opening files, doing other I/O, or calculating some other private fields (which wouldn't make sense to initialise when constructing the builder).

Upvotes: 6

ljedrz
ljedrz

Reputation: 22243

Note that the CircleBuilder impl contains only methods that can be chained together (they return a &mut CircleBuilder), one that initializes and one that returns a Circle.

It makes sense when someone wants to create an object "incrementally", through multiple steps, and separate those methods from e.g. those exposing the object's properties.

Your code is fine - it's a matter of preference. I would probably only create a new(x: f64, y: f64, radius: f64) method that would build a full Circle at once, like Circle::new(1.0, 2.0, 2.0).

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions