Reputation: 111
Was writing some code in Rust trying to define a CLI, using the (otherwise pretty great) crate clap
, and run into a rather critical issue. Methods of App
accept an Into<&'help str>
, and i've been unable to find a way to implement this trait.
Indeed from what i understand, it is absolutely unimplementable:
struct JustWorkDamnIt {
string: String
}
impl From<JustWorkDamnIt> for &str {
fn from(arg: JustWorkDamnIt) -> Self {
return arg.string.as_str()
}
}
...which yields:
error[E0515]: cannot return value referencing local data `arg.string`
--> src/cmd/interactive.rs:25:16
|
25 | return arg.string.as_str()
| ----------^^^^^^^^^
| |
| returns a value referencing data owned by the current function
| `arg.string` is borrowed here
Interestingly enough, however, returning a literal compiles just fine (which i reckon is why clap
doesn't mind using this trait). Presumably that's because the literal is compiled to some static region of memory and therefore isn't owned by the function:
impl From<JustWorkDamnIt> for &str {
fn from(arg: JustWorkDamnIt) -> Self {
return "literal"
}
}
But, i mean, surely there's a way to implement this trait and return dynamic strings? Maybe some clever use of Box<> or something, idk. I believe i've tried all the things i could think of.
And if there isn't a way, then this seems like a pretty glaring flaw for Rust - traits which can be declared and used in function headers, but cannot be actually implemented meaningfully (there's not much of a point in returning a literal). If this turns out to be the case i'll create an issue on the rust-lang repository for this flow, but first i wanted to sanity-check my findings here.
UPD: Thanks for the comments, made me think more in-depth about this issue.
The problem has to do with lifetimes, it seems. I apologize for not showing the entire code, i thought the snippets i shared would describe the problem sufficiently, but in hindsight it does make sense that the context would be important with Rust's lifetimes at play.
I did find a "solution" for this particular instance of the problem. Since the code in question will only run once per executable start, i can just Box::leak
the &'static str
and call it a day. Still, i would like to figure out if there's a more general solution which could be used for often-created dynamic strings.
impl Cmd for InteractiveCmd {
fn build_args_parser<'a, 'b>(&'b self, builder: App<'a>) -> App<'a> {
// leak() works here but i'm curious if there's a better way
let staticStr : &'static str = Box::leak(Box::from(format!("Interactive {} shell", APPNAME).as_str()));
let rv = builder
// pub fn about<S: Into<&'b str>>(mut self, about: S) -> Self
.about(staticStr)
.version("0.1");
return rv;
}
}
fn main() {
let interactive = InteractiveCmd::new();
let mut app = App::new(APPNAME)
.version(APPVER)
.author(AUTHORS)
.subcommand(interactive.build_args_parser(App::new("interactive")));
}
Currently i am faced with 2 points of confusion here:
impl From<String> for &str
? The compiler claims that one exists for impl From<String> for &mut str
, and i'm not seeing the importance of mut
here.impl From<String> for &str
, would it make sense to somehow discourage the usage of Into<&str>
in the public APIs of libraries?Or maybe the issue is with my build_args_parser function and it's just not an option to offload the work to it as far as Rust is concerned?
Upvotes: 11
Views: 5357
Reputation: 494
Seems like you're trying to convert a String
into a &'a str
. You can do it like this:
use clap::App;
fn main() {
let s = format!("Interactive {} shell", "Testing");
let app = App::new("Testing")
.about(&*s); // or `.about(s.as_str());` it's the same
}
Here's the signature of the function that we want to call:
pub fn about<S: Into<&'b str>>(self, about: S) -> Self
So the about
parameter must implement trait Into<&'b str>
. According to std::convert::Into
, we know that &'b str
does implement trait Into<&'b str>
. So now we just need a way to convert String
into &'b str
. The std::string::String
tell us that there are two ways: use either s.as_str()
or &*s
.
Upvotes: 4