Executive summary: if you don’t want or need the background information or the discussion motivating the proposal, then just jump straight to the proposal itself.

Early in my experimentation with Rust, I thought a reasonable exercise would be to take the simple C++ programs from Elements of Programming (Stepanov and McJones), which make heavy yet disciplined use of abstraction and C++ templates to encode various mathematical concepts. The early chapters of the book use templates rather than classes as the means of code reuse, so translating those examples seemed like a good way to exercise Rust’s generic type and trait systems.

However, almost immediately after starting the experiment, I encountered a problem: code that makes heavy use of C++ templates is quite likely to use particular features of C++ templates that are not a universal part of another language’s generic type system.

In particular, the code from Elements of Programming (hereby abbreviated “EOP” in this post) almost immediately makes use of “associated types”, such as in the following definition for distance :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 template < typename F > requires ( Transformation ( F )) DistanceType ( F ) distance ( Domain ( F ) x , Domain ( F ) y , F f ) { // Precondition: $y$ is reachable from $x$ under $f$ typedef DistanceType ( F ) N ; N n ( 0 ); while ( x != y ) { x = f ( x ); n = n + N ( 1 ); } return n ; }

The interesting thing about the above code is that it is parameterized over one type: F , but it uses other type expressions within the body of the procedure, namely:

Domain(F) : this is a type -> type operator that, given a Transformation (which we can think of as some type classifying a set of T -> T functions for some type T ), returns T .

DistanceType(F) : this is a type -> type operator that, given a Transformation, returns a numeric type (think uint8_t , uint32_t , uintptr_t , BigNum , etc) suitable for counting the minimum number of applications of the transformation necessary to get from any particular T value to some other T value.

(Operators like DistanceType , to my mind, only makes sense when you look at things simultaneously in terms of bytes of memory in the machine and also in terms of pure abstract mathematical values. If you omit either perspective, then the operator appears either pointless or nonsensical.)

It also requires that F obeys a constraint, specified in the requires clause; I am going to conveniently ignore this detail for now. (The C++ code for EOP even macro-expands requires(..) into whitespace, so treating them as helpful comments for the time being is not absurd.)

Type expressions like triple<A, B, C> (assuming three type expressions A , B , and C ), are the bread-and-butter of any generic type system. But these type -> type operators are interesting. How are they implemented? Here is a snippet from type_functions.h in the EOP source code distribution:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 template < typename F > requires ( Transformation ( F )) struct distance_type ; // If all transformations on a type T have the same distance type, // then DistanceType(T) is defined and returns that type. // For any fixed-size type T, there is an integral type of the same // size that is a valid distance type for T. #define DistanceType(T) typename distance_type< T >::type

This code is making use of a C-style macro to define a easy-to-read interface for the DistanceType operator (the subset of C++ used for EOP’s textbook examples is meant to be LL(1)), but the implementation of the operator is using C++’s template system to define a partial mapping from types to (integral) types. One can add new entries to this mapping by defining a new template instantiation of struct distance_type<F> , as illustrated in tests.h for the following transformation gen_orbit :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 template < typename I , typename N > requires ( Integer ( I ) && Integer ( N ) && DistanceType ( I ) = N ) struct gen_orbit // transformation { gen_orbit_predicate < I , N > p ; gen_orbit ( I x_0 , N h , N c ) : p ( x_0 , h , c ) { // Precondition: h < N(MaximumValue(I)) && c < N(MaximumValue(I)) // Precondition: !negative(h) && !negative(c) } I operator () ( I x ) { Assert ( p ( x )); x = successor ( x ); if ( x == p . x_0 + I ( p . h ) + I ( p . c )) x = p . x_0 + I ( p . h ); return x ; } }; template < typename I , typename N > requires ( Integer ( I ) && Integer ( N ) && DistanceType ( I ) = N ) struct distance_type < gen_orbit < I , N > > { typedef N type ; };

Thus, the definition of gen_orbit (including its instantiation of distance_type ) collaborates with the definition of DistanceType to indicate that DistanceType(gen_orbit<I, N>) is N . As one adds new structs (classes) representing other transformations, one is expected to instantiate distance_type (as well as a host of other template-abstracted structs) accordingly.

So, what’s the problem here? Well, Rust, much like Java, does not provide a way to define general type -> type mappings like DistanceType(F) .

One can try to work around this via a code transformation and lift any type of interest up to a generic class’s parameter list, like this example in Rust:

1 2 3 trait Transformation < DISTANCETYPE , DOMAIN > { fn apply ( & self , elem : DOMAIN ) -> DOMAIN ; }

or if you prefer Java:

1 2 3 interface Transformation < DISTANCETYPE , DOMAIN > { DOMAIN apply ( DOMAIN elem ); }

At first glance, one might think this does not look so bad; after all, the gen_orbit struct similarly was parameterized over a domain I and a distance type N . However, the problem comes when one then attempts to write a function like distance:

Rust:

1 2 3 fn distance < F : Transformation < DT , DOM > > ( x : ??? , y : ??? , f : F ) -> ??? { /* ... */ }

Java:

1 2 3 public static < F extends Transformation < DT , DOM > ??? distance (??? x , ??? y , F f ) { /* ... */ }

What do we put in for the ??? portions? We already established that we do not have general type -> type operators, so we cannot just derive it form F . And for that matter, where did DT and DOM come from? In Rust and Java, we cannot just make up fresh type variables and then add constraints upon them after the fact. The only option is to make any type we wish to use an additional type parameter to the generic method.

Rust:

1 2 3 fn distance < DT , DOM , F : Transformation < DT , DOM > > ( x : DOM , y : DOM , f : F ) -> DT { /* ... */ }

Java:

1 2 3 4 public static < DT , DOM , F extends Transformation < DT , DOM > > DT distance ( DOM x , DOM y , F f ) { /* ... */ }

The Rust and Java results above are made barely readable by using short (obscure) parameter names. More troubling is the fact that this pollution of the parameter list will bubble transitively backwards through the callers of distance until we reach the point where F is instantiated. Any use of Transformation needs to be parameterized in the same manner.

It also makes explicit instantiation of a parameterized method or class quite painful. (This pain is somewhat alleviated in the presence of type-inference, at least in terms of what text ends up in the final code, but I argue that that in this case the pain has in fact been shifted: instead of having pain while reading the code, one instead suffers when trying to wade through type-errors that inevitably arise during the compile-edit cycle.)

If anything, the above presentation understates the problem, since:

Transformation has only one argument in its domain, and its codomain is the same as its domain; many real traits with associated types are each likely to require multiple parameters. The above example has direct uses of DOM and DT in the domain and codomain, respectively, of distance . However, every client of Transformation will be forced to be parameterized over DOM and DT ; while it is likely that any client of Transformation is likely to need to refer to the type DOM , many are likely to not require use of the distance type DT in their public interface or even in the internals of their code. Thus, our abstraction is not very abstract at all. As a follow-on to the previous point: We are only illustrating one added concept: DistanceType ; each additional concept would require a new type parameter to be threaded through the parameter lists of all methods and classes. This blows up to an unmaintainable mess fairly quickly, discouraging use of generics to define these abstractions (and instead relying on e.g. separate class-hierarchies).

I encountered this problem while porting EOP code to Rust. After wrestling with the type parameter lists for a while, I eventually wised up and asked on the #rust IRC channel if there was a better option. Tim Chevalier informed me of the relevant terminology: the feature I want is called “associated types access” (or often just “associated types”). An associated type specifies a mapping from some type to another type.

“Associated type access” is listed as one of eight properties considered important in “A comparative study of language support for generic programming” (Garcia et al., 2003 ACM). If you found the argument above unconvincing, you should read the Garcia paper for a completely different example motivated by a Graph abstraction.

After I read the Garcia paper, I promptly filed an RFC on the Rust github repository requesting support for Associated Type Synonyms. After this, I had several discussions with Niko Matsakis, both over IRC and in person, on the problems that associated types present for Rust.

You can see Niko’s thorough overview of the matter, including his natural generalization of the topic from “associated types” to “associated items”, on his pair of blog posts (part I, part II). The generalization to “associated items” enables one to define, in addition to type -> type mappings as illustrated above, also type -> function mappings (called in some languages “static” functions) and type -> (constant) value mappings, which may enable certain interesting coding patterns, such as allowing a type representing a vector in a multi-dimensional space to state, statically, how many dimensions it carries.

The following are the specific points that Niko makes in his posts (some of are just pointing out artifacts of current Rust language syntax).

Current Rust syntax focuses on deriving associated functions from traits

Rust does not currently offer general associated items, but it does offer a kind of associated function access.

If a trait T defines a function f that returns Self (which means that implementations of T are obligated to provide an implementation of f ), and one has a type X implementing that trait, then one can derive f .

But in current Rust syntax, one does not write this derivation of f as something attached to the type X ; instead, one writes T::f(..) , and the compiler is responsible for inferring which implementation of the function f one is referring to, by using type-inference on the context of the invocation T::f(..) to determine that the return type of f must be X (and thus the f in question must be the one that the type X implements to satisfy the obligation established by the trait T ).

The choice of deriving a function’s implementation from the trait rather than the type is understandable when one considers that a software system may have multiple traits T , U , V , … that all define a function of the same name (say f ), and a type may be specified as implementing more than one of these traits in a single piece of code. (It would be anti-modular to require every trait to choose globally unique names for its set of associated functions). So to handle this case, one must provide some way to disambiguate which f is being referenced. Rust did so by making the trait expression part of the invocation syntax. Niko points out that if one switches to a syntax where one derives f from the type X (e.g. “ X::f ” ) then one must tackle this problem in some manner; in his first blog post, he suggests doing so by allowing one to encode both the type and the trait in the referencing syntax (e.g. “ X::(T::f) ” or “ X::(U::f) ” .

I dislike this syntax because I think it would be confusing for a reader to comprehend the distinct roles of the “ :: ” path operator, both when learning the language and when casually skimming Rust code in general.

Rust type expressions do not naturally fit into Rust path expressions

Niko also points out that when one wants to write X::f where X is a type, it is not always the case that X is a type parameter; it could be a concrete type known to the programmer, such as the type of owned vecs of ints, denoted by the type expression

`~[int]`.

So it seems natural to want to substitute such a type expression for (the meta-variable) X .

But the syntax ~[int]::f is not legal, because ~[int] is not a legitimate path component. Niko describes a couple of work-arounds, e.g. allowing one to wrap a type expression that appears in a path expression with brackets, yielding: <~[int]>::f .

All of the work-arounds presented by Niko do require allowing arbitrary type-expressions in some form to appear as a sub-expression, which would complicate the parser in the Rust compiler (there has been a slight push to try to simplify the path expression syntax, which this would conflict with).

Further syntactic exploration of encoding trait and type

In his second blog post, Niko provides some alternative syntactic forms for resolution:

X::(T::f) , as described above.

T::f::<X> (from “Functional-style name resolution (take 1)”); here X is a synthetic type parameter added to the type parameter list (if any) of f ; so now we get to retain syntactic backwards compatibility. Since Rust allows one to omit the explicit type instantiation ::<X, ...> when the compiler is able to infer the instantiation, this would be a natural way to continue doing return-type based inference of the desired type, the way it does already.

T::f::<for X> as a way of distinguishing the synthetic parameter from other entries on the parameter list.

I have already stated my problems with the first option.

For the second option, I anticipate being personally confused by the synthetic type parameter being injected into the type parameter list. I understand the appeal of enabling the compiler to continue doing heavy lifting and lighten the programmers syntactic load. Niko’s post does a good job of laying out some of the unexpected interactions of the synthetic type parameter with the other forms of generic type parameterization.

The third option would reduce confusion somewhat, since the synthetic parameter would receive special attention at points of type instantiation, but I still think it is an abuse of the parameter list.

So I set about trying to come up with another syntactic form for associated item access. My primary focus initially was: all of these examples would be so much simpler, to my mind, if we were able to go back to using a single identifier for the relevant path component in the referencing form, the way that C++ uses C::f . How can Rust make its own analogous R::f (the “R” is for Rust).

Of course, we have already covered that this will be ambiguous if R is a mere type (and it is of course ambiguous if R is just a trait).

But what if R is a way of referring to the type X and the trait T together: the (type, trait) pairing (X,T)? Clearly once one specifies the pair, then it is easy to tell what items are associated with the pair. Even a human without a sophisticated IDE would know in that case to try invoking grep , searching for impl T.* for X.* ; a compiler can do even better.

Another way of looking at this: What if we could introduce local names for the impl that corresponds to the (type, trait) pairing.

So I started working on ideas all centering around a declaration form like let R = trait T for type X; or use impl R = T for X and other variations (I think Patrick Walton actually deserves credit for that last one; we will revisit it later). But Niko quickly pointed the huge failing of all of these declaration forms: a very common use case for associated types (remember, that was our original goal) is for function signatures, like:

1 2 3 fn distance < F : Transformation > ( x : Domain ( F ), y : Domain ( F ), f : F ) -> DistanceType ( F ); fn remove_edge < G : IncidenceGraph + EdgeCollection > ( g : & mut G , e : Edge ( G ));

where Domain(F) , DistanceType(F) , and Edge(G) are replaced with appropriately Rust-friendly syntactic forms. There is no place there to put a declaration form let ... or use ... that refers to F . The same applies for other parameterized forms, such as structs, enums, and traits.

So, back to the drawing board.

Even though my attempt to solve this problem via a declaration form had failed, I continued to focus on the fact that associated item access is all about the (type, trait) pairing. So how could I surmount the parameterized signature wall?

After reflecting on the parameterized signature itself, I said, “where is a natural place to put a binding from an identifier to a (type, trait) pair?” And this reduced to “where does the (type, trait) pair come from?” This was my insight: The parameterized signature

` `

itself is where the pairing is defined; (or in the case of <X: T + U> : pairings).

My only problem was to put the identifier binding in there. Once I saw the pairing waiting right in the parameter list, the place for the identifier became clear: in-between the type and the trait:

` `

binds R to the impl T for X ; for multiple traits, we have <X: R=T + R2=U> , where R is bound as above, and R2 is bound to the impl U for X .

And now we can consider writing our examples like so:

1 2 3 fn distance < F : T = Transformation > ( x : T :: Domain , y : T :: Domain , f : F ) -> T :: DistanceType ; fn remove_edge < G : IncidenceGraph + EC = EdgeCollection > ( g : & mut G , e : EC :: Edge );

The other cute insight is this: the only time we need to add these identifiers explicitly is when there are multiple trait bounds. When there is a single trait bound <X:R=T> , the identifier X is just as reasonable (or at least unambiguous) as R is as a way to reference the impl. So why not treat

` `

as an abbreviation for <X:X=T> : boom! The biggest potential complaint with this extension (namely, the notational complexity of making people pepper their code with explicit bindings of the impls) goes away! And our first example becomes:

1 fn distance < F : Transformation > ( x : F :: Domain , y : F :: Domain , f : F ) -> F :: DistanceType ;

(our second example remains unchanged, since G has two trait bounds there, and so G alone cannot unambiguously denote a (type, trait) pair.

Note also that this binding form does not suffice on its own; in particular, if one wants to introduce a binding for a (type,trait) pairing that does not appear in the generic parameter bounds of the signature. But the latter is exactly the case that is handled by a declaration form such as those proposed earlier!

So neither solution suffices on its own, but the two together cover many use cases of interest.

So, with that insight explained, here is my proposal for associated items:

A trait can now declare names for things besides methods. In terms of the grammar that John has been working on: trait_decl: TRAIT ident (generic_decls)? (COLON trait_list)? LBRACE trait_method* RBRACE ; is replaced with trait_decl: TRAIT ident (generic_decls)? (COLON trait_list)? LBRACE trait_item* RBRACE ; trait_item: trait_method | trait_constant | trait_type trait_type: TYPE ident (generic_decls)? SEMI | TYPE ident (generic_decls)? COLON boundseq SEMI ; trait_const: STATIC ident COLON ty SEMI ; The identifier bound by a trait types is in scope of its enclosing trait; trait method declarations and trait const declarations can reference it. Extend the Rust grammar to allow an optional binding of an identifier to a (type, trait) pair in a type parameter bound. In terms of the grammar: bound : STATIC_LIFETIME | trait | obsoletekind ; is replaced with: bound : STATIC_LIFETIME | trait | ident = trait | obsoletekind ; Extend the Rust grammar to allow a declaration binding an identifier to a (type, trait) pair. In terms of the grammar, I think this is close to what I want: view_item : attrs_vis use ; is replaced with: view_item : attrs_vis use | USE impl ident = trait for ty ; Of potential interest, we do not allow visibility attributes on use impl R = T for X; , because these definitions are always local shorthands and thus private to the module. (Maybe in the future we will see motivation to allow the bindings to be exposed, but I have not yet seen a motivation for this.) I am not attached to the particulars of the syntax above; in particular, if someone wants to throw in the trait and/or type keywords into the above to make the purpose all the more clear, I will not object. More so if it is somehow necessary for disambiguation, but I do not anticipate that being the case. A bound of the form R=T ( ident = ty ) in the context of a ty_param production X : ... [] ... ( ident COLON bound + ... + [] + ... + bound ) (where [] denotes the contextual hole that the R=T is plugged into) is treated as binding R to the code defined by the impl T for X . The scope of the binding for R encompasses: the rest of the boundseq (to the right of the "R=T" ) and the remainder of this decl that follows the generic_decls within which the R=T bound appears. This binding of R can shadow earlier bindings of the same identifier (either other impl-bindings, or module names). It seems like this should be a reasonable thing to signal via a lint-warning. A path identifier component can now be an R , binding an impl T for X . So one can access trait items (see trait_item above) as R::item. Associated items can be type-parametric whenever the corresponding item could be type-parameteric when exported from a module. A boundseq with a single bound of variant ty above, where ty is itself of the form ident (i.e. the <X:T> case) is implicitly expanded into <X:X=T> .

There are cases of interest that are not covered by the above proposal.

Most obvious to me are situations where one wants to describe mutual constraints between the items associated with type parameters. (An example of this is provided by the gen_orbit example with the constraint DistanceType(I) = N , and more generally much of the content of the requires(..) clauses from EOP that I deliberately ignored). For the examples from EOP, C++ handles this by doing the template instantiation blindly and applying the type checker to code after concrete types have been substituted for the parameters; this approach is not compatible with Rust’s design where we want to type-check a generic body of code in terms of the guarantees provided by the trait-bounds, not delaying those checks until after the concrete types have been plugged in.

Also, in the changes I proposed above to the Rust grammar (and somewhat implicitly to its semantics), I deliberately constrained my focus to the cases Niko described in his blog posts: types, functions, and constants. But one might consider further extensions, such as allowing traits to define other traits. (I found that subject hard to wrap one’s mind around, and I wanted to keep the focus limited for Rust 1.0; we can leave generalizations of this approach for after Rust 1.0.)

Also, I’m not sure whether there is need and/or utility in further generalizing this topic to associated data families. Again, I want to limit the scope of the work to something we believe we can accomplish for Rust 1.0.

What else have I missed? Let me know, leave a comment. (Or look for me in the #rust irc channel.)