Reputation: 734
I am working with some generic structs like the following:
pub struct Example<A, B, C, D, E, F> {
inner: OtherExample<A, B, C, D, E, F>
...
}
and throughout implementing methods of this struct, I have to keep referring to that huge set of types like so:
impl<A, B, C, D, E, F> Example<A, B, C, D, E, F> {
pub fn get_inner(&self) -> &OtherExample<A, B, C, D, E, F> {
&self.inner
}
...
}
and I'm wondering if there is a way to shorten up the notation on all these generic types. For the sake of readability, I can't just use single letters like I have in the examples above, so I would really want to create a generic type alias in the struct like so:
pub struct Example<AliasedGenerics = <A, B, C, D, E, F>> {
inner: OtherExample<AliasedGenerics>
...
}
impl<AliasedGenerics = <A, B, C, D, E, F>> Example<AliasedGenerics> {
pub fn get_inner(&self) -> &OtherExample<AliasedGenerics> {
&self.inner
}
...
}
So that I don't have to keep writing extremely long lines and improve the readability of the generic implementation.
Upvotes: 8
Views: 4893
Reputation: 8484
Without knowing more context, I can't say whether this will solve your problem, but you can use associated types to do something rather similar:
// Define the "alias"
pub trait GenericsSet { type A; type B; type C; }
pub struct Example<G: GenericsSet>(OtherExample<G>);
pub struct OtherExample<G: GenericsSet> { a: G::A, b: G::B, c: G::C, }
// I was a bit surprised that it is possible,
// but it seems you can even impose limits on some of the parameters
impl<G: GenericsSet<C = String>> Example<G> {
fn foo(&self) -> &str { &self.0.c }
fn get_inner(&self) -> &OtherExample<G> { &self.0 }
}
// Here, the illusion fades a bit:
// You'll need a type for each combination of types you want to use
struct MyGS1 {}
impl GenericsSet for MyGS1 { type A = (); type B = bool; type C = String; }
fn main() {
println!("{}", Example::<MyGS1>(OtherExample {a: (), b: true, c: "works".into() }).foo())
}
I would recommend against using this trick in a public API, though.
Upvotes: 10