[RFC] Default field values #3681

estebank · 2024-08-22T23:46:12Z

Allow struct definitions to provide default values for individual fields and
thereby allowing those to be omitted from initializers. When deriving Default,
the provided values will then be used. For example:

#[derive(Default)]
struct Pet {
    name: Option<String>, // impl Default for Pet will use Default::default() for name
    age: i128 = 42, // impl Default for Pet will use the literal 42 for age
}

Rendered

Tracking:

Tracking issue for RFC 3681: Default field values rust#132162

text/0000-default-field-values.md

scottmcm · 2024-08-22T23:56:37Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+}
+```
+
+These can then be used in the following way with the Functional Record Update syntax, with no value:


I'm not sure we should call this FRU, since there's no base object.

My preference would be to say this RFC doesn't actually touch FRU at all, just expands struct field expressions (and the derives and such)...

I think it's useful if the RFC draws parallel to the FRU syntax whenever possible, to avoid needing to re-explain things like how struct initializer expressions are type checked (especially bc going into the detail of how it actually works means this RFC is gonna get it wrong). But it's worthwhile calling this something different than FRU.

Agree in the reference section, C-E, but not in the summary.

text/0000-default-field-values.md

scottmcm · 2024-08-23T00:05:24Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+Because this RFC gives a way to have default field values, you can now simply
+invert the pattern expression and initialize a `Config` like so (15):
+
+```rust
+let config = Config { width, height, .. };
+```


I don't think this RFC actually makes this possible.

It would need an additional feature like allowing

#[non_exhaustive(but_future_fields_will_have_defaults)] pub struct Config { pub width: u16, pub height: u16, }

because #[non_exhaustive] is a license to add private fields without defaults today.

And there are types today like

#[non_exhaustive] pub struct Foo;

that we really don't want to make creatable by Foo { .. } in other crates, since the reason they have that attribute today is to prevent such construction.

I think that's fine, though: this RFC is useful without such an addition, and thus it can be left as future work.

Just to see if I get you right, you saying that this RFC should disallow #[non_exhaustive] and default fields on the same struct, and leave any interaction as an open question? I'm down with that.

I was thinking that defaults would still be allowed, but the type would remain unconstructable from outside the defining crate. That way you can still use things like a default on PhantomData on internal, non_exhaustive types.

Given that

#[non_exhaustive] pub struct Foo;

is commonly used to write a type that cannot be constructed outside the crate (replacing the old pub struct Foo(()); way of writing this), I don't think we can ever say that any non_exhaustive types are constructible outside the defining crate without the defining crate opting-in to that somehow. Telling everyone they have to change back to having a private field is a non-starter, in my opinion.

But I'd also be fine with saying that you just can't mix them yet, and make decisions about it later.

Honestly, I think it would be useful to preserve the property that Struct { field: value, .. } as an expression (the proposed syntax) is equivalent to Struct { field: value, ..Default::default() }, and as such, these examples would only work if these structs derived or manually implemented Default.

That should cover the API concerns, although it would make Default become a lang item, which I am personally fine with but I am not everyone, so, that would be a downside to this approach.

If it doesn't interact with Default at all, I agree that it shouldn't allow this, since it does break APIs.

I think requiring Default is unnecessarily limiting, since it would prevent using the nice new syntax with structs where some fields have defaults and others intentionally do not, e.g. if syn::Index (a tuple struct field name) used the new syntax it could be:

pub struct Index { pub index: u32, pub span: Span = Span::call_site(), }

I think we can get pretty far with linting here.

A lint can check if the body of your Default::default impl is const fn-compatible, and suggest changing it to have inline defaults if so.

One thing I like about this feature is that it means that the vast majority of (braced-struct) Defaults move to being deriveable -- even Vec's Default could, for example! -- and thus anything that's not would start to really stand out, and starting being a candidate for IDE hints and such.

Rereading this I believe that the part of the feature that has a bad interaction is allowing the construction of types that have private default field values. Disallowing that in general, or when the type is also annotated with non_exhaustive would eliminate the issue for every cross-crate case, right? The only potential issue would be intra-crate, and that's already out of scope of non_exhaustive, IIUC.

On reading the RFC, I was honestly a little confused on why interaction with non_exhaustive would be a problem.

My understanding is that non_exhaustive means you can't construct the struct outside of the crate. The ability to have defaults shouldn't have any impact on that. And prohibiting use of defaults on a non_exhaustive struct seems unnecessarily restrictive, since that could still be useful within the crate.

Now, there may be value in a non_exhaustive_but_future_fields_have_defaults functionality, but I think that should be a separate attribute, or add an argument to the existing non_exhaustive attribute, not usurp and change the meaning of the current non_exhaustive attribute.

scottmcm · 2024-08-23T00:08:49Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+In particular, the syntax `Foo { .. }` mirrors the identical and already
+existing pattern syntax. This makes the addition of `Foo { .. }` at worst
+low-cost and potentially cost-free.


One drawback that comes to mind is that it'll mean that a pattern Foo { .. } can match more things than just the expression Foo { .. }, because the pattern matches any value of the unmentioned fields, but the expression sets them to a particular value.

That means that, with the unstable inline_const_pat, the arm const { Foo { .. } } => matches less than the arm Foo { .. } => (assuming a type like struct Foo { a: i32 = 1 }).

I think I'm probably fine with that, but figured I'd mention it regardless.

That is an excellent call-out of a non-obvious interaction I hadn't accounted for.

Perhaps it would be worth adding syntax alternatives like Foo { ... } or Foo { ..some_keyword } to the "Rationale and alternatives" section.

Well, that is already the case?
x if x == Foo { a, b } matches less than Foo { a, b } assuming a and b variables are in scope.
Although f you define a and b as constants then Foo { a, b } will match the exact value, which is.... interesting.

I don't think this is a problem, it is expected that patterns behave differently from expressions.

In particular, the syntax Foo { .. } mirrors the identical and already
existing pattern syntax.

Indeed, and that's a downside -- it mirrors the syntax but has different semantics. The text here makes it sound like that's a good thing; I think that should be reworded (and not just called out under "Downsides").

text/0000-default-field-values.md

max-niederman · 2024-08-23T00:23:27Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+}
+```
+
+```rust


I think it's worth also comparing against derive macros like typed-builder, which at least in my experience are a very common solution to this problem.

text/0000-default-field-values.md

programmerjake · 2024-08-23T01:17:00Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+facilitates specification of field defaults; or it can directly use the default
+values provided in the type definition.
+
+### `structopt`


maybe replace with clap? since clap v3, basically all structopt stuff was integrated into clap and structopt is de-facto deprecated. https://docs.rs/structopt/0.3.26/structopt/index.html#maintenance

Yeah, this is a holdover from the original RFC written a number of years ago when structopt was in common usage.

text/0000-default-field-values.md

tmandry · 2024-08-23T06:22:02Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+```
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives


I would like to see a section on differences from FRU (especially the interaction with privacy and #[non_exhaustive]) including why it is the way it is and the reason for diverging from it in this RFC. And possibly a future possibility about how they can be made more consistent in the future.

I'm generally a big fan of this RFC, but undoing past mistakes by adding more features without fixing the features we have leads to an uneven and complex language surface. So let's try to make sure we can do both.

I think that it is reasonable to change this RFC to explicitly follow RFC-0736, and disallow the construction of types with private fields, if that will make this RFC less controversial. Particularly when considering the interaction with #[derive(Default)], the feature is useful on its own without expanding the field privacy rules.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I want to understand and consider the rationale for RFC-0736. I dislike it, but think there was probably a good reason for it, even if I can't remember what it was at the moment. That reason may or may not apply here.

edit: I would be happy to help with this btw, it's just too late for me to do right now :)

The problem with FRU is all about it not having the desugaring that lots of people expect.

There would be no problem with FRU and privacy if it only allowed you to modify public fields on a type, but the problem is that what it does is secretly duplicate private fields on a type, which is blatantly wrong for literally-but-not-semantically Copy types like the pointer in a Vec. https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/struct.20update.20syntax.20with.20non.20exhaustive.20fields/near/438944351

I think the way forward here is to fix FRU (sketch in https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/struct.20update.20syntax.20with.20non.20exhaustive.20fields/near/438946306) so that it can obviously work fine with non_exhaustive (and private fields), rather than try to work in an exception here.

That sketch uses a completely new syntax, so we wouldn't be fixing FRU so much as deprecating it and replacing it with something else.

It seems better to design this one to work the way we want from the beginning? Especially since people will have to opt in and might rely on restrictions we implement today (even if we document that those restrictions will be lifted in the future.. people don't usually read the docs on language features so much as try them out in the playground).

text/0000-default-field-values.md

nikomatsakis · 2024-10-22T19:14:41Z

@rfcbot reviewed

We discussed this in a design meeting and I am in favor of the big picture. Much of our discussion centered around the Default trait and whether it was ok to have fields that don't have defaults for types that do implement Default (there is a certain inconsistency there). My feeling is that most of the types I work with have multiple "levels" of abstraction, with Foo {} syntax being an "internal constructor" where I might like to have more explicit values to ensure I use the right things, but then to have ::new or ::default methods that use the most commonly needed values or set things up with a good initial value. So to me there is a big difference between the public defaults and the private defaults, in other words, with the the former being a superset of the latter but not necessarily equal.

(I also tend to feel that Default is used for "just gimme some value, probably an empty or 0 one", which is itself a pretty aggressive default.)

rfcbot · 2024-10-22T19:14:54Z

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

traviscross · 2024-10-22T23:00:56Z

@rfcbot reviewed

In the meeting, we talked about the question of "what are we suggesting that people do?". I.e., are we suggesting, when we stabilize this, that people should go out of their way to write syntactic defaults for non-mandatory fields even when those match the Default::default() on the field?

I.e., should it be considered best practice to write this...

#[derive(Default)]
pub struct ElevatedPoint {
    pub x: u8 = 0,
    pub y: u8 = 0,
    pub z: NonZero<u8> = unsafe { NonZero::new_unchecked(1) },
}

...since it will allow using the new pretty syntax?

To answer that question, we laid this out:

NM: What are the patterns we want people to be using? I think it is:

Bucket of optional things (no mandatory fields):

Your users write Foo { .. } or Foo::default() or Foo { option1, .. }

You want to be able to add more options later (but not more mandatory fields)

Implementation guidance:

to specify default values for every field

derive default

use non-exhaustive

Deriving Default is a SemVer commitment to not later having mandatory fields.

Builder with mandatory fields:

Your users write Foo { mandatory1, mandatory2, optional1, .. }

You want to be able to add more options later (but not more mandatory fields)

Implementation guidance:

to specify values for some fields

do not implement default (which would be a commitment to having no mandatory)

use non-exhaustive with some way to say "all future values with have defaults"

Private constructors (with some defaults) but publicly opaque

Public users are expected to use default or other public constructor methods

Internally you use Foo { } to specify things precisely but wish to use .. to avoid typing all the fields all the time

Implementation guidance:

Fields are all private, some of which may have default values

You implement Default::default as a "constructor" (similar to new)

Just give me a damn value

Need something to store

Antipatterns to be avoided at all costs:

Foo::default() != Foo { .. } compiles (i.e., both are valid, but you get different values)

Implications of the patterns 1-4:

Lint or error if you derive with some public fields that lack defaults (but others that have them)

This ensures you are either in "bucket of optional things" or "private constructors"

Things I would expect to improve over time:

Some lighterweight way to get "give me the type's default" -- people will add proc macros for this, but there should be a way to say it

A way to use non-exhaustive to say "all future values will have defaults"

That makes sense to me as a story and as a plan.

ppershing · 2024-10-25T05:40:59Z

text/0000-default-field-values.md

+As you saw in (7), `Vec::new()`, a function call, was used.
+However, this assumes that `Vec::new` is a *`const fn`*. That is, when you
+provide a default value `field: Type = value`, the given `value` must be a
+*constant expression* such that it is valid in a [`const` context].


What are the other requirements on the value type? Vec example indicates the type doesn't need to be Copy. Does it need to be Clone? The decision here might be especially important for ZSTs which are used as some kind of token and are supposed to guarantee that they cannot be conjured/cloned out of thin air

What are the other requirements on the value type? Vec example indicates the type doesn't need to be Copy. Does it need to be Clone?

I don't think there should be. The value is given as a const expression, which can be thought as being constructed on each usage. This is also why [CONSTANT; 10] always work and does not require the element type to be Clone or Copy.

The decision here might be especially important for ZSTs which are used as some kind of token and are supposed to guarantee that they cannot be conjured/cloned out of thin air

If the definition site explicitly mark a default field by using a valid way to construct it. It does not create any extra way to conjure a ZST. It's the same as they define a impl S { pub const DEFAULT_FIELD: ArbitraryNoCopyTy = some_constructor(); } and users write S { field: S::DEFAULT_FIELD }.

What are the other requirements on the value type?

I would say there are no requirements on the type. The requirements are just on the expression used to generate it, which are the same as the requirements needed in a const { … }.

Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in rust-lang/rfcs#3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ```

Ciel-MC · 2024-10-26T17:18:16Z

Interesting, this also allows pseudo-optional args for functions. But I am a little worried about mixing data structures with code. When I see a literal struct construction, my mind puts it as “simple and free”, when I see a function, my brain goes “something is happening here”, I feel like this kind of goes against the idea of being explicit about when things happen… Am I overthinking?

tmccombs · 2024-10-26T19:05:52Z

my mind puts it as “simple and free”

With the initial expression being constrained to const expressions, most of the work is done at compile time, and at runtime is still simple and almost free

This moves the syntax we chose to align closer with actual Rust code. See rust-lang/rfcs#3681 for more details.

Co-authored-by: Felix S Klock II <pnkfelix@pnkfx.org>

Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in rust-lang/rfcs#3681. Support default fields in enum struct variant Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition: ```rust pub enum Bar { Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant ```rust Bar::Foo { .. } ``` `#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants. Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields ```rust pub enum Bar { #[default] Foo { bar: S = S, baz: i32 = 42 + 3, } } ``` Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build. Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled). Properly instantiate MIR const The following works: ```rust struct S<A> { a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(), } S::<i32> { .. } ```

rfcbot · 2024-11-01T19:19:15Z

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

This will be merged soon.

traviscross · 2024-11-03T21:15:53Z

The team has accepted this RFC, and we've now merged it.

Thanks to @estebank for writing this up and pushing it forward, and thanks to all the many people who reviewed this and provided helpful feedback.

For further updates, follow the tracking issue:

Tracking issue for RFC 3681: Default field values rust#132162

compiler-errors reviewed Aug 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

estebank force-pushed the default-fields branch from 866b2c7 to 43fea8c Compare August 22, 2024 23:52

scottmcm added the T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the RFC. label Aug 22, 2024

scottmcm reviewed Aug 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

estebank force-pushed the default-fields branch from 43fea8c to 16f8bfd Compare August 22, 2024 23:54

default-field-values: initial version

d81136d

estebank force-pushed the default-fields branch from 16f8bfd to d81136d Compare August 22, 2024 23:56

scottmcm reviewed Aug 22, 2024

View reviewed changes

estebank changed the title ~~default-field-values: initial version~~ RFC: Default field values Aug 23, 2024

estebank changed the title ~~RFC: Default field values~~ Default field values Aug 23, 2024

estebank changed the title ~~Default field values~~ [RFC] Default field values Aug 23, 2024

scottmcm reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

scottmcm reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

compiler-errors reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

scottmcm reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

max-niederman reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

max-niederman reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

max-niederman reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

programmerjake reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

tmandry reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

bluebear94 reviewed Aug 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

estebank added 6 commits August 23, 2024 17:49

Remove example of using the functional update syntax and reword summary

7d3823b

Change argument for non_exhaustive to not allow it at first

608c47c

mention future lint

14496f3

const patterns drawback

4564ea2

changes to privacy rules

ba93bfc

add suggested paragraph

607271b

pnkfelix reviewed Oct 15, 2024

View reviewed changes

text/0000-default-field-values.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

rfcbot added final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of all team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Oct 22, 2024

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Sign in to view

ppershing reviewed Oct 25, 2024

View reviewed changes

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Sign in to view

estebank mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2024

Tracking issue for RFC 3681: Default field values rust-lang/rust#132162

Open

6 tasks

hughsie added a commit to fwupd/fwupd that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2024

trivial: Add the 'Default' trait when required

9ebd2dd

This moves the syntax we chose to align closer with actual Rust code. See rust-lang/rfcs#3681 for more details.

hughsie mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2024

trivial: Add the 'Default' trait when required fwupd/fwupd#7974

Merged

4 tasks

superm1 pushed a commit to fwupd/fwupd that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024

trivial: Add the 'Default' trait when required

73d59dd

This moves the syntax we chose to align closer with actual Rust code. See rust-lang/rfcs#3681 for more details.

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Oct 29, 2024

Parse default values in fields dtolnay/syn#1774

Open

Update text/0000-default-field-values.md

096fa1c

Co-authored-by: Felix S Klock II <pnkfelix@pnkfx.org>

rfcbot added finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this RFC. to-announce and removed final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. labels Nov 1, 2024

Prepare RFC 3681 to be merged

80e8d0b

traviscross force-pushed the default-fields branch from 2235794 to 80e8d0b Compare November 3, 2024 21:03

traviscross merged commit abf3bf8 into rust-lang:master Nov 3, 2024

Commandcracker mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2024

Cleanup pumpkin-config Snowiiii/Pumpkin#303

Merged

2 tasks

+              }
+              ```
+              ```rust

[RFC] Default field values #3681

[RFC] Default field values #3681

Conversation

estebank commented Aug 22, 2024 • edited by rustbot Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

clarfonthey Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

max-niederman Aug 23, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

RalfJung Sep 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

tmandry Aug 24, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nikomatsakis commented Oct 22, 2024 • edited Loading

rfcbot commented Oct 22, 2024

traviscross commented Oct 22, 2024 • edited Loading

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

This comment was marked as off-topic.

Ciel-MC commented Oct 26, 2024

tmccombs commented Oct 26, 2024

rfcbot commented Nov 1, 2024

traviscross commented Nov 3, 2024

estebank commented Aug 22, 2024 •

edited by rustbot

Loading

clarfonthey Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

max-niederman Aug 23, 2024 •

edited

Loading

RalfJung Sep 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

tmandry Aug 24, 2024 •

edited

Loading

nikomatsakis commented Oct 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading

traviscross commented Oct 22, 2024 •

edited

Loading