- Feature Name:
default_field_values
- Start Date: 2024-08-22
- RFC PR: rust-lang/rfcs#3681
- Tracking Issue: rust-lang/rust#132162
Summary
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
}
These can then be used in the following way with the existing functional update
syntax, but without a “base expression” after the ..
:
// Pet { name: Some(""), age: 42 }
let _ = Pet { name: Some(String::new()), .. }
// Compilation error: `name` needs to be specified
let _ = Pet { .. }
Derived Default
impl
also uses struct field defaults if present:
// Pet { name: None, age: 42 }
let _ = Pet::default();
Motivation
Boilerplate reduction
For struct
s
Rust allows you to create an instance of a struct
using the struct literal
syntax Foo { bar: expr, baz: expr }
. To do so, all fields in the struct
must be assigned a value. This makes it inconvenient to create large struct
s
whose fields usually receive the same values. It also allows you construct a
new instance of the same struct
by consuming some (or all) of the fields of
an existing value, which can reduce noise when a struct
derives Default
,
but are also invalid when the struct
has inaccessible fields and do not allow
the creation of an impl
where some fields are mandatory.
To work around these shortcomings, you can create constructor functions:
struct Foo {
alpha: &'static str,
beta: bool,
gamma: i32,
}
impl Foo {
/// Constructs a `Foo`.
fn new(alpha: &'static str, gamma: i32) -> Self {
Self {
alpha,
beta: true,
gamma
}
}
}
let foo = Foo::new("Hello", 42);
The problem with a constructor is that you need one for each combination
of fields a caller can supply. To work around this, you can use builders,
such as process::Command
in the standard library.
Builders enable more advanced initialization, but require additional boilerplate.
To represent the difference, we can see the dramatic syntactical increase for
semantically small changes:
// All fields are mandatory
struct Foo {
alpha: &'static str,
beta: bool,
gamma: i32,
}
impl Foo {
/// Constructs a `Foo`.
fn new(alpha: &'static str, gamma: i32) -> Self {
Self {
alpha,
beta: true,
gamma
}
}
}
// A builder type that is able to construct a `Foo`, but that will fail at runtime if a field is
// missing.
#[derive(Default)]
struct FooBuilder {
pub alpha: Option<&'static str>,
pub beta: Option<bool>,
pub gamma: Option<i32>,
}
impl FooBuilder {
fn new() -> Self {
FooBuilder::default()
}
fn set_alpha(&mut self, alpha: &'static str) -> &mut Self {
self.alpha = Some(alpha);
self
}
fn set_beta(&mut self, beta: &'static str) -> &mut Self {
self.beta = Some(beta);
self
}
fn set_gamma(&mut self, gamma: &'static str) -> &mut Self {
self.gamma = Some(gamma);
self
}
fn build(self) -> Foo {
Foo {
alpha: self.alpha.unwrap(),
beta: self.beta.unwrap(),
gamma: self.gamma.unwrap_or(0),
}
}
}
pub struct Foo {
pub alpha: &'static str,
pub beta: bool,
pub gamma: i32,
}
// A builder type that is able to construct a `Foo`, but that will fail at compile time if a field
// is missing.
#[derive(Default)]
pub struct FooBuilder<const A: bool, const B: bool, const G: bool> {
alpha: Option<&'static str>,
beta: Option<bool>,
gamma: Option<i32>,
}
// We provide this `impl` on its own so that `FooBuilder::new()` will work without specifying the
// const parameters.
impl FooBuilder<false, false, false> {
fn new() -> FooBuilder<false, false, false> {
FooBuilder::default()
}
}
// The fields can only be set once. Calling `set_alpha` twice will result in a compilation error.
impl<const B: bool, const G: bool> FooBuilder<false, B, G> {
fn set_alpha(mut self, alpha: &'static str) -> FooBuilder<true, B, G> {
self.alpha = Some(alpha);
unsafe { std::mem::transmute(self) }
}
}
impl<const A: bool, const G: bool> FooBuilder<A, false, G> {
fn set_beta(mut self, beta: bool) -> FooBuilder<A, true, G> {
self.beta = Some(beta);
unsafe { std::mem::transmute(self) }
}
}
impl<const A: bool, const B: bool> FooBuilder<A, B, false> {
fn set_gamma(mut self, gamma: i32) -> FooBuilder<A, B, true> {
self.gamma = Some(gamma);
unsafe { std::mem::transmute(self) }
}
}
// If any field is optional,
impl<const G: bool> FooBuilder<true, true, G> {
fn build(self) -> Foo { // can only be called if all fields have been set
Foo {
alpha: self.alpha.unwrap(),
beta: self.beta.unwrap(),
gamma: self.gamma.unwrap_or(0), // This is an optional field with a default.
}
}
}
fn main() {
let _ = FooBuilder::new()
.set_alpha("")
.set_beta(false) // If we comment this out, it will no longer compile.
.set_gamma(42) // If we comment this out, it will still compile.
.build();
}
All of the above can be represented with the exact same results with struct field default values, but with much less boilerplate:
pub struct Foo {
pub alpha: &'static str,
pub beta: bool,
pub gamma: i32 = 0,
}
fn main() {
let _ = Foo {
alpha: "",
beta: false,
..
};
}
The builder pattern is quite common in the Rust ecosystem, but as shown above its need is greatly
reduced with struct
field defaults.
#[derive(Default)]
in more cases
The #[derive(..)]
(“custom derive”) mechanism works by defining procedural
macros. Because they are macros, these operate on abstract syntax and
don’t have more information available. Therefore, when you #[derive(Default)]
on a data type definition as with:
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo {
bar: u8,
baz: String,
}
it only has the immediate “textual” definition available to it.
Because Rust currently does not have an in-language way to define default values,
you cannot #[derive(Default)]
in the cases where you are not happy with the
natural default values that each field’s type provides. By extending the syntax
of Rust such that default values can be provided, #[derive(Default)]
can be
used in many more circumstances and thus boilerplate is further reduced. The
addition of a single field, expands the code written by the struct
author from
a single derive
line to a whole Default
impl
, which becomes more verbose
linearly with the number of fields.
Imperfect derives
One thing to notice, is that taking default values into consideration during the
desugaring of #[derive(Default)]
would allow to side-step the issue of our
lack of perfect derives, by making the desugaring syntactically check which
type parameters correspond to fields that don’t have a default field, as in the
expansion they will use the default value instead of Default::default()
. By
doing this a user can side-step the introduction of unnecessary bounds by
specifying a default value of the same return value of Default::default()
:
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo<T> {
bar: Option<T>,
}
previously expands to:
struct Foo<T> {
bar: Option<T>,
}
impl<T: Default> Default for Foo<T> {
fn default() -> Foo<T> {
Foo {
bar: Default::default(),
}
}
}
but we can make the following:
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo<T> {
bar: Option<T> = None,
}
expand to:
struct Foo<T> {
bar: Option<T>,
}
impl<T> Default for Foo<T> {
fn default() -> Foo<T> {
Foo {
bar: None,
}
}
}
Usage by other #[derive(..)]
macros
Custom derive macros exist that have a notion of or use default values.
serde
For example, the serde
crate provides a #[serde(default)]
attribute that
can be used on struct
s, and fields. This will use the field’s or type’s
Default
implementations. This works well with field defaults; serde
can
either continue to rely on Default
implementations in which case this RFC
facilitates specification of field defaults; or it can directly use the default
values provided in the type definition.
structopt
Another example is the structopt
crate with which you can write:
#[derive(Debug, StructOpt)]
#[structopt(name = "example", about = "An example of StructOpt usage.")]
struct Opt {
/// Set speed
#[structopt(short = "s", long = "speed", default_value_t = 42)]
speed: f64,
...
}
By having default field values in the language, structopt
could let you write:
#[derive(Debug, StructOpt)]
#[structopt(name = "example", about = "An example of StructOpt usage.")]
struct Opt {
/// Set speed
#[structopt(short = "s", long = "speed")]
speed: f64 = 42,
...
}
derive_builder
A third example comes from the crate derive_builder
. As the name implies,
you can use it to #[derive(Builder)]
s for your types. An example is:
#[derive(Builder, Debug, PartialEq)]
struct Lorem {
#[builder(default = "42")]
pub ipsum: u32,
}
Conclusion
As seen in the previous sections, rather than make deriving Default
more magical, by allowing default field values in the language,
user-space custom derive macros can make use of them.
Guide-level explanation
Providing field defaults
Consider a data-type such as (1):
pub struct Probability {
value: f32,
}
You’d like encode the default probability value to be 0.5
;
With this RFC now you can provide such a default directly where Probability
is defined like so (2):
pub struct Probability {
value: f32 = 0.5,
}
Having done this, you can now construct a Probability
with a struct
initializer and leave value
out to use the default (3):
let prob = Probability { .. };
Deriving Default
Previously, you might have instead implemented the Default
trait like so (4):
impl Default for Probability {
fn default() -> Self {
Self { value: 0.5 }
}
}
You can now shorten this to (5):
impl Default for Probability {
fn default() -> Self {
Self { .. }
}
}
However, since you had specified value: f32 = 0.5
in the definition of
Probability
, you can take advantage of that to write the more simpler
and more idiomatic (6):
#[derive(Default)]
pub struct Probability {
value: f32 = 0.5,
}
Having done this, a Default
implementation equivalent to the one in (5)
will be generated for you.
More fields
As you saw in the summary, you are not limited to a single field and all
fields need not have any defaults associated with them. Instead, you can freely
mix and match. Given the definition of LaunchCommand
from the motivation (7):
struct LaunchCommand {
cmd: String,
args: Vec<String> = Vec::new(),
some_special_setting: Option<FancyConfig> = None,
setting_most_people_will_ignore: Option<FlyMeToTheMoon> = None,
}
you can omit all fields but cmd
(8):
let ls_cmd = LaunchCommand {
cmd: "ls".to_string(),
..
};
You can also elect to override the provided defaults (9):
let ls_cmd2 = LaunchCommand {
cmd: "ls".to_string(),
args: vec!["-lah".to_string()],
some_special_setting: make_special_setting(),
// setting_most_people_will_ignore is still defaulted.
..
};
Default fields values are const
contexts
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.
Therefore, you cannot write something like (10):
fn launch_missiles() -> Result<(), LaunchFailure> {
authenticate()?;
begin_launch_sequence()?;
ignite()?;
Ok(())
}
struct BadFoo {
bad_field: u8 = {
launch_missiles().unwrap();
42
},
}
Since launching missiles interacts with the real world and has side-effects
in it, it is not possible to do that in a const
context since it may violate
deterministic compilation.
Privacy interactions
The same privacy interactions that the struct update syntax has when a base is present are still at place under this RFC: if a type can’t be constructed from another base expression due to private fields, then it can’t be constructed from field defaults either. See Future Possibilities for additional context.
#[non_exhaustive]
interactions
RFC 2008 introduced the attribute #[non_exhaustive]
that can be placed
on struct
, enum
, and enum
variants. The RFC notes that upon defining
a struct
in crate A such as (12):
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct Config {
pub width: u16,
pub height: u16,
}
it is not possible to initialize a Config
in a different crate B (13):
let config = Config { width: 640, height: 480 };
This is forbidden when #[non_exhaustive]
is attached because the purpose of
the attribute is to permit adding fields to Config
without causing a
breaking change. However, the RFC goes on to note that you can pattern match
if you allow for the possibility of having fields be ignored with ..
(14):
let Config { width, height, .. } = config;
This RFC restricts the use of default field values only to types that are not
annotated with #[non_exhaustive]
, leaving it and the specifics of their
interaction if allowed as an open question of future concern. Supporting this
without additional compiler support could mean that the following
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct Foo;
// another crate
let _ = Foo { .. }; // Currently forbidden
Would be allowed, changing the meaning of this code in a way that goes against user intention.
Some alternatives present for the case mentioned above can be:
- Add a private non-defaulted field:
which disallows the following#[non_exhaustive] pub struct Config { pub width: u16 = 640, pub height: u16 = 480, __priv: PhantomData<()> }
at the cost of forcing the API-internal construction oflet _ = Config { .. }; let _ = Config { width: 800, height: 600, .. };
Config
to specify__priv
everywhere. - If defaulting private fields is allowed outside of the current crate, or that behavior
can be explicitly set by the user, then the following:
still disallows the following#[non_exhaustive] pub struct Config { pub width: u16 = 640, pub height: u16 = 480, __priv: PhantomData<()> = PhantomData, }
while also allowing precisely that syntax within the API-internal constructions oflet _ = Config { .. }; let _ = Config { width: 800, height: 600, .. };
Config
.
Defaults for enum
s
The ability to give fields default values is not limited to struct
s.
Fields of enum
variants can also be given defaults (16):
enum Ingredient {
Tomato {
color: Color = Color::Red,
taste: TasteQuality,
},
Onion {
color: Color = Color::Yellow,
}
}
Given these defaults, you can then proceed to initialize Ingredient
s
as you did with struct
s (17):
let sallad_parts = vec![
Ingredient::Tomato { taste: Yummy, .. },
Ingredient::Tomato { taste: Delicious, color: Color::Green, },
Ingredient::Onion { .. },
];
Note that enum
variants have public fields and in today’s Rust,
this cannot be controlled with visibility modifiers on variants.
Furthermore, when #[non_exhaustive]
is specified directly on an enum
,
it has no interaction with the defaults values and the ability to construct
variants of said enum. However, as specified by RFC 2008, #[non_exhaustive]
is permitted on variants. When that occurs, the behaviour is the same as if
it had been attached to a struct
with the same fields and field visibility.
Interaction with #[default]
It is possible today to specify a #[default]
variant in an enum so that it
can be #[derive(Default)]
. A variant marked with #[default]
will use
defaulted fields when present.
#[derive(Default)]
enum Ingredient {
Tomato {
color: Color = Color::Red,
taste: TasteQuality,
},
Onion {
color: Color = Color::Yellow,
},
#[default]
Lettuce {
color: Color = Color::Green,
},
}
Now the compiler does know that Ingredient::Lettuce
should be considered
the default and will accordingly generate an appropriate implementation of
Default for Ingredient
(19):
impl Default for Ingredient {
fn default() -> Self {
Ingredient::Lettuce {
color: Color::Green,
}
}
}
Defaults on tuple struct
s and tuple enum
variants
Default values are only allowed on named fields. There is no syntax provided for
tuple types like struct S(i32)
or enum E { V(i32), }
.
Reference-level explanation
Field default values
Grammar
Let the grammar of record fields in struct
s and enum
variants be defined
like so (in the .lyg
notation):
RecordField = attrs:OuterAttr* vis:Vis? name:IDENT ":" ty:Type;
Then, RecordField
is changed into:
RecordField = attrs:OuterAttr* vis:Vis? name:IDENT ":" ty:Type { "=" def:Expr }?;
Further, given the following partial definition for the expression grammar:
Expr = attrs:OuterAttr* kind:ExprKind;
ExprKind =
| ...
| Struct:{ path:Path "{" attrs:InnerAttr* fields:StructExprFieldsAndBase "}" }
;
StructExprFieldsAndBase =
| Fields:{ fields:StructExprField* % "," ","? }
| Base:{ ".." base:Expr }
| FieldsAndBase:{ fields:StructExprField+ % "," "," ".." base:Expr }
;
StructExprField = attrs:OuterAttr* kind:StructExprFieldKind;
StructExprFieldKind =
| Shorthand:IDENT
| Explicit:{ field:FieldName ":" expr:Expr }
;
the rule StructExprFieldsAndBase
is extended with:
StructExprFieldsAndBase =| FieldsAndDefault:{ fields:StructExprField+ % "," "," ".." };
StructExprFieldsAndBase =| Default:{ ".." }
Static semantics
Defining defaults
Given a RecordField
where the default is specified, i.e.:
RecordField = attrs:OuterAttr* vis:Vis? name:IDENT ":" ty:Type "=" def:Expr;
all the following rules apply when type-checking:
-
The expression
def
must be a constant expression. -
The expression
def
must coerce to the typety
. -
Generic parameters of the current items are accessible
struct Bar<const A: usize> { field: usize = A, }
-
Default const expressions are not evaluated at definition time, only during instantiation. This means that the following will not fail to compile:
struct Bar { field1: usize = panic!(), field2: usize = 42, } let _ = Bar { field1: 0, .. };
Having said that, it can be possible to proactivelly attempt to evaluate the default values and emit a lint in a case where the expression is assured to always fail (which would only be possible for expressions that do not reference
const
parameters). -
The
struct
’s parameters are properly propagated, meaning the following is possible:struct Bar<T> { field: Vec<T> = Vec::new(), } let _ = Bar::<i32> { .. };
When lints check attributes such as #[allow(lint_name)]
are placed on a
RecordField
, it also applies to def
if it exists.
Initialization expressions
Path { fields, .. }
is const
since the defaulted fields are initialized
from constants.
#[derive(Default)]
When generating an implementation of Default
for a struct
named $s
on
which #[derive(Default)]
has been attached, the compiler will omit all fields
which have default values provided in the struct
. The the associated function
default
shall then be defined as (where $f_i
denotes the i
-th field of
$s
):
fn default() -> Self {
$s { $f_i: Default::default(), .. }
}
Drawbacks
The usual drawback of increasing the complexity of the language applies. However, the degree to which complexity is increased is not substantial.
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.
It is true that there are cases where Foo { ..Default::default() }
will be
allowed where Foo { .. }
won’t be, and vice-versa.
This new syntax is more ergonomic to use, but it requires specifying a default
value for every field which can be much less ergonomic than using
#[derive(Default)]
on your type. The following two are almost equivalent, and
the more fields there are, the more the verbosity is increased:
#[derive(Default)]
struct S {
foo: Option<String>,
bar: Option<String>,
}
struct S {
foo: Option<String> = None,
bar: Option<String> = None,
}
This can become relevant when an API author wants to push users towards the new
syntax because ..
is shorter than ..Default::default()
, or when some fields
with types that impl Default
are optional, but #[derive(Default)]
can’t be
used because some fields are mandatory.
The main complexity comes instead from introducing field: Type = expr
.
However, as seen in the prior-art, there are several widely-used languages
that have a notion of field / property / instance-variable defaults.
Therefore, the addition is intuitive and thus the cost is seen as limited. As
an implementation detail, rustc
already parses field: Type = expr
purely to provide an appropriate diagnostic error:
error: default values on `struct` fields aren't supported
--> src/lib.rs:2:28
|
2 | pub alpha: &'static str = "",
| ^^^^^ help: remove this unsupported default value
An issue arises when considering const
patterns. 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. This 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 }
). A way to mitigate this might be to use
an alternative syntax, like ...
or ..kw#default
.
Rationale and alternatives
Besides the given motivation, there are some specific design choices worthy of more in-depth discussion, which is the aim of this section.
Provided associated items as precedent
While Rust does not have any support for default values for fields or for formal parameters of functions, the notion of defaults are not foreign to Rust.
Indeed, it is possible to provide default function bodies for fn
items in
trait
definitions. For example:
pub trait PartialEq<Rhs: ?Sized = Self> {
fn eq(&self, other: &Rhs) -> bool;
fn ne(&self, other: &Rhs) -> bool { // A default body.
!self.eq(other)
}
}
In traits, const
items can also be assigned a default value. For example:
trait Foo {
const BAR: usize = 42; // A default value.
}
Thus, to extend Rust with a notion of field defaults is not an entirely alien concept.
Pattern matching follows construction
In mathematics there is a notion of one thing being the dual of another. Loosely speaking, duals are often about inverting something. In Rust, one example of such an inversion is expressions and patterns.
Expressions are used to build up and patterns break apart; While it doesn’t hold generally, a principle of language design both in Rust and other languages with with pattern matching has been that the syntax for patterns should, to the extent possible, follow that of expressions.
For example:
-
You can match on or build up a struct with
Foo { field }
. For patterns this will makefield
available as a binding while for expressions the bindingfield
will be used to build aFoo
.For a tuple struct,
Foo(x)
will work both for construction and matching. -
If you want to be more flexible, both patterns and expressions permit
Foo { field: bar }
. -
You can use both
&x
to dereference and bind tox
or construct a reference tox
. -
An array can be constructed with
[a, b, c, d]
and the same is a valid pattern for destructuring an array.
The reason why matching should follow construction is that it makes languages easier to understand; you simply learn the expression syntax and then reuse it to run the process in reverse.
In some places, Rust could do a better job than it currently does of adhering to
this principle. In this particular case, the pattern syntax Foo { a, b: c, .. }
has no counterpart in the expression syntax. This RFC rectifies this by
permitting Foo { a, b: c, .. }
as an expression syntax; this is identical
to the expression syntax and thus consistency has been gained.
However, it is not merely sufficient to use the same syntax for expressions;
the semantics also have to be similar in kind for things to work out well.
This RFC argues that this is the case because in both contexts, ..
indicates
something partially ignorable is going on: “I am destructuring/constructing
this struct, and by the way there are some more fields I don’t care about
and let’s drop those* / and let’s fill in with default values”.
In a way, the use of _
to mean both a catch-all pattern and type / value
placeholder is similar to ..
; in the case of _
both cases indicate something
unimportant going on. For patterns, _
matches everything and doesn’t give
access to the value; for types, the placeholder is just an unbounded inference
variable.
On const
contexts
To recap, the expression a default value is computed with must be constant one. There are many reasons for this restriction:
-
If determinism is not enforced, then just by writing the following snippet, the condition
x == y
may fail:let x = Foo { .. }; let y = Foo { .. };
This contributes to surprising behaviour overall.
Now you may object with an observation that if you replace
Foo { .. }
withmake_foo()
then a reader no longer know just from the syntactic form whetherx == y
is still upheld. This is indeed true. However, there is a general expectation in Rust that a function call may not behave deterministically. Meanwhile, for the syntactic formFoo { .. }
and with default values, the whole idea is that they are something that doesn’t require close attention. -
The broader class of problem that non-determinism highlights is that of side-effects. These effects wrt. program behaviour are prefixed with “side” because they happen without being communicated in the type system or more specifically in the inputs and outputs of a function.
In general, it is easier to do formal verification of programs that lack side-effects. While programming with Rust, requirements are usually not that demanding and robust. However, the same properties that make pure logic easier to formally verify also make for more local reasoning.
By requring default field values to be
const
contexts, global reasoning can be avoided. Thus, the reasoning footprint forFoo { .. }
is reduced. -
By restricting ourselves to
const
contexts, you can be sure that default literals have a degree of cheapness.While
const
expressions form a turing complete language and therefore have no limits to their complexity other than being computable, these expressions are evaluated at compile time. Thus,const
expressions cannot have unbounded complexity at run-time. At most,const
expressions can create huge arrays and similar cases;Ensuring that
Foo { .. }
remains relatively cheap is therefore important because there is a general expectation that literal expressions have a small and predictable run-time cost and are trivially predictable. This is particularly important for Rust since this is a language that aims to give a high degree of control over space and time as well as predictable performance characteristics. -
Keeping default values limited to
const
expressions ensures that if the following situation develops:// Crate A: pub struct Foo { bar: u8 = const_expr, } // Crate B: const fn baz() -> Foo { Foo { .. } }
then crate A cannot suddenly, and unawares, cause a semver breakage for crate B by replacing
const_expr
withnon_const_expr
since the compiler would reject such a change (see lemmas 1-2). Thus, enforcing constness gives a helping hand in respecting semantic version.Note that if Rust would ever gain a mechanism to state that a function will not diverge, e.g.:
nopanic fn foo() -> u8 { 42 } // The weaker variant; more easily attainable. total fn bar() -> u8 { 24 } // No divergence, period.
then the same semver problem would manifest itself for those types of functions. However, Rust does not have any such enforcement mechanism right now and if it did, it is generally harder to ensure that a function is total than it is to ensure that it is deterministic; thus, while it is regrettable, this is an acceptable trade-off.
-
Finally, note that
const fn
s, can become quite expressive. For example, it is possible to useloop
s,match
es,let
statements, andpanic!(..)
s. Another feasible extension in the future is allocation.Therefore, constant expressions should be enough to satisfy most expressive needs.
Instead of Foo { ..Default::default() }
As an alternative to the proposed design is either explicitly writing out
..Default::default()
or extending the language such that Foo { .. }
becomes
sugar for Foo { ..Default::default() }
. While the former idea does not satisfy
any of the motivation set out, the latter does to a small extent.
In particular, Foo { .. }
as sugar slightly improves ergonomics.
However, it has some notable problems:
-
Because it desugars to
Foo { ..Default::default() }
, it cannot be required that the expression is a constant one. This carries all the problems noted in the previous section on why default field values should be aconst
context. -
There is no way of implementing a
Default
implementation that has mandatory fields for users to specify during value construction. -
It provides zero improvements to the ergonomics of specifying defaults, only for using them. Arguably, the most important aspect of this RFC is not the syntax
Foo { .. }
but rather the ability to provide default values for fields. -
By extension, the improvement to documentation clarity is lost.
-
The trait
Default
must now become a#[lang_item]
. This is a sign of increasing the overall magic in the system; meanwhile, this proposal makes the default values provided usable by other custom derive macros.
Thus in conclusion, while desugaring ..
to Default::default()
has lower cost,
it also provides significantly less value to the point of not being worth it.
..
is useful as a marker
One possible change to the current design is to permit filling in defaults
by simply writing Foo {}
; in other words, ..
is simply dropped from the
expression.
Among the benefits are:
-
To enhance ergonomics of initialization further.
-
To introduce less syntax.
-
To be more in line with how other languages treat default values.
Among the drawbacks are:
-
The syntax
Foo { .. }
is no longer introduced to complement the identical pattern syntax. As aforementioned, destruction (and pattern matching) generally attempts to follow construction in Rust. Because of that, introducingFoo { .. }
is essentially cost-free in terms of the complexity budget. It is arguably even cost-negative. -
By writing
Foo { .. }
, there is explicit indication that default values are being used; this enhances local reasoning further.
This RFC requires the ..
to get defaulted fields because it wants to continue
to allow the workflow of intentionally not including ..
in the struct
literal expression so that when a user adds a field they get compilation errors
on every use – just like is currently possible in patterns by not including
..
in the struct pattern.
Named function arguments with default values
A frequently requested feature is named function arguments. Today, the way to design around the lack of these in the language are:
- Builder pattern
- Defining a
struct
“bag-object” where optional fields are set, making users call functions in the following way:foo(mandatory, Optionals { bar: 42, ..Default::default() })
- Provide multiple methods:
fn foo(mandatory)
andfn foo_with_bar(mandatory, bar)
Prior art
A prior version of this RFC, from which part of the contents in this version were sourced, exists at https://github.com/Centril/rfcs/pull/19.
This RFC was informed by a lengthy discussion in internals.rust-lang.org from a few years prior.
Another prior RFC for the same feature is at https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1806.
Other languages
This selection of languages are not exhaustive; rather, a few notable or canonical examples are used instead.
Java
In Java it is possible to assign default values, computed by any expression, to an instance variable; for example, you may write:
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Foo();
}
public static int make_int() {
System.out.println("I am making an int!");
return 42;
}
static class Foo {
private int bar = Main.make_int();
}
}
When executing this program, the JVM will print the following to stdout
:
I am making an int!
Two things are worth noting here:
-
It is possible to cause arbitrary side effects in the expression that computes the default value of
bar
. This behaviour is unlike that which this RFC proposes. -
It is possible to construct a
Foo
which uses the default value ofbar
even thoughbar
hasprivate
visibility. This is because default values act as syntactic sugar for how the default constructorFoo()
should act. There is no such thing as constructors in Rust. However, the behaviour that Java has is morally equivalent to this RFC since literals are constructor-like and because this RFC also permits the usage of defaults for private fields where the fields are not visible.
Scala
Being a JVM language, Scala builds upon Java and retains the notion of default field values. For example, you may write:
case class Person(name: String = make_string(), age: Int = 42)
def make_string(): String = {
System.out.println("foo");
"bar"
}
var p = new Person(age = 24);
System.out.println(p.name);
As expected, this prints foo
and then bar
to the terminal.
Kotlin
Kotlin is similar to both Java and Scala; here too can you use defaults:
fun make_int(): Int {
println("foo");
return 42;
}
class Person(val age: Int = make_int());
fun main() {
Person();
}
Similar to Java and Scala, Kotlin does also permit side-effects in the default values because both languages have no means of preventing the effects.
C#
Another language with defaults of the object-oriented variety is C#. The is behaviour similar to Java:
class Foo {
int bar = 42;
}
C++
Another language in the object-oriented family is C++. It also affords default values like so:
#include <iostream>
int make_int() {
std::cout << "hello" << std::endl; // As in Java.
return 42;
}
class Foo {
private:
int bar = make_int();
public:
int get_bar() {
return this->bar;
}
};
int main() {
Foo x;
std::cout << x.get_bar() << std::endl;
}
In C++ it is still the case that the defaults are usable due to constructors.
And while the language has constexpr
to enforce the ability to evaluate
something at compile time, as can be seen in the snippet above, no such
requirement is placed on default field values.
Swift
A language which is closer to Rust is Swift, and it allows for default values:
struct Person {
var age = 42
}
This is equivalent to writing:
struct Person {
var age: Int
init() {
age = 42
}
}
Agda
Having defaults for record fields is not the sole preserve of OO languages. The pure, total, and dependently typed functional programming language Agda also affords default values. For example, you may write:
-- | Define the natural numbers inductively:
-- This corresponds to an `enum` in Rust.
data Nat : Set where
zero : Nat
suc : Nat → Nat
-- | Define a record type `Foo` with a field named `bar` typed at `Nat`.
record Foo : Set where
bar : Nat
bar = zero -- An optionally provided default value.
myFoo : Foo
myFoo = record {} -- Construct a `Foo`.
In contrast to languages such as Java, Agda does not have have a notion of
constructors. Rather, record {}
fills in the default value.
Furthermore, Agda is a pure and strongly normalizing language and as such,
record {}
may not cause any side-effects or even divergence. However,
as Agda employs monadic IO in the vein of Haskell,
it is possible to store a IO Nat
value in the record:
record Foo : Set where
bar : IO Nat
bar = do
putStrLn "hello!"
pure zero
Note that this is explicitly typed as bar : IO Nat
and that record {}
won’t
actually run the action. To do that, you will need take the bar
value and run
it in an IO
context.
Procedural macros
There are a number of crates which to varying degrees afford macros for default field values and associated facilities.
#[derive(Builder)]
A third example comes from the crate derive_builder
. As the name implies,
you can use it to #[derive(Builder)]
s for your types. An example is:
#[derive(Builder, Debug, PartialEq)]
struct Lorem {
#[builder(default = "42")]
pub ipsum: u32,
}
Under this RFC, the code would be
#[derive(Default, Debug, PartialEq)]
struct Lorem {
pub ipsum: u32 = 42,
}
#[derive(Derivative)]
The crate derivative
provides the #[derivative(Default)]
attribute.
With it, you may write:
#[derive(Derivative)]
#[derivative(Default)]
struct RegexOptions {
#[derivative(Default(value="10 * (1 << 20)"))]
size_limit: usize,
#[derivative(Default(value="2 * (1 << 20)"))]
dfa_size_limit: usize,
#[derivative(Default(value="true"))]
unicode: bool,
}
#[derive(Derivative)]
#[derivative(Default)]
enum Foo {
#[derivative(Default)]
Bar,
Baz,
}
Contrast this with the equivalent in the style of this RFC:
#[derive(Default)]
struct RegexOptions {
size_limit: usize = 10 * (1 << 20),
dfa_size_limit: usize = 2 * (1 << 20),
unicode: bool = true,
}
#[derive(Default)]
enum Foo {
#[default]
Bar,
Baz,
}
There a few aspects to note:
-
The signal to noise ratio is low as compared to the notation in this RFC. Substantial of syntactic overhead is accumulated to specify defaults.
-
Expressions need to be wrapped in strings, i.e.
value="2 * (1 << 20)"
. While this is flexible and allows most logic to be embedded, the mechanism works poorly with IDEs and other tooling. Syntax highlighting also goes out of the window because the highlighter has no idea that the string included in the quotes is Rust code. It could just as well be a poem due to Shakespeare. At best, a highlighter could use some heuristic. -
The macro has no way to enforce that the code embedded in the strings are constant expressions. It might be possible to fix that but that might increase the logic of the macro considerably.
-
Because the macro merely customizes how deriving
Default
works, it cannot provide the syntaxFoo { .. }
, interact with privacy, and it cannot provide defaults forenum
variants. -
Like in this RFC,
derivative
allows you to deriveDefault
forenum
s. The syntax used in the macro is#[derivative(Default)]
whereas the RFC provides the more ergonomic and direct notation#[default]
in this RFC. -
To its credit, the macro provides
#[derivative(Default(bound=""))]
with which you can remove unnecessary bounds as well as add needed ones. This addresses a deficiency in the current deriving system for built-in derive macros. However, the attribute solves an orthogonal problem. The ability to specify default values would mean thatderivative
can piggyback on the default value syntax due to this RFC. The mechanism for removing or adding bounds can remain the same. Similar mechanisms could also be added to the language itself.
#[derive(SmartDefault)]
The smart-default
provides #[derive(SmartDefault)]
custom derive macro.
It functions similarly to derivative
but is specialized for the Default
trait.
With it, you can write:
#[derive(SmartDefault)]
struct RegexOptions {
#[default = "10 * (1 << 20)"]
size_limit: usize,
#[default = "2 * (1 << 20)"]
dfa_size_limit: usize,
#[default = true]
unicode: bool,
}
#[derive(SmartDefault)]
enum Foo {
#[default]
Bar,
Baz,
}
-
The signal to noise ratio is still higher as compared to the notation in due to this RFC. The problems aforementioned from the
derivative
crate with respect to embedding Rust code in strings also persists. -
Points 2-4 regarding
derivative
apply tosmart-default
as well. -
The same syntax
#[default]
is used both bysmart-default
and by this RFC. While it may seem that this RFC was inspired bysmart-default
, this is not the case. Rather, this RFC’s author came up with the notation independently. That suggests that the notation is intuitive since and a solid design choice. -
There is no trait
SmartDefault
even though it is being derived. This works because#[proc_macro_derive(SmartDefault)]
is in fact not tied to any trait. That#[derive(Serialize)]
refers to the same trait as the name of the macro is from the perspective of the language’s static semantics entirely coincidental.However, for users who aren’t aware of this, it may seem strange that
SmartDefault
should derive for theDefault
trait.
#[derive(new)]
The derive-new
crate provides the #[derive(new)]
custom derive macro.
Unlike the two previous procedural macro crates, derive-new
does not
provide implementations of Default
. Rather, the macro facilitates the
generation of MyType::new
constructors.
For example, you may write:
#[derive(new)]
struct Foo {
x: bool,
#[new(value = "42")]
y: i32,
#[new(default)]
z: Vec<String>,
}
Foo::new(true);
#[derive(new)]
enum Enum {
FirstVariant,
SecondVariant(bool, #[new(default)] u8),
ThirdVariant { x: i32, #[new(value = "vec![1]")] y: Vec<u8> }
}
Enum::new_first_variant();
Enum::new_second_variant(true);
Enum::new_third_variant(42);
Notice how #[new(value = "vec![1]")
, #[new(value = "42")]
,
and #[new(default)]
are used to provide values that are then omitted
from the respective constructor functions that are generated.
If you transcribe the above snippet as much as possible to the system proposed in this RFC, you would get:
struct Foo {
x: bool,
y: i32 = 42,
z: Vec<String> = <_>::default(),
// --------------
// note: assuming some `impl const Default { .. }` mechanism.
}
Foo { x: true };
enum Enum {
FirstVariant,
SecondVariant(bool, u8), // See future possibilities.
ThirdVariant { x: i32, y: Vec<u8> = vec![1] }
}
Enum::FirstVariant;
Enum::SecondVariant(true, 0);
Enum::ThirdVariant { x: 42 };
Relative to #[derive(new)]
, the main benefits are:
- No wrapping code in strings, as noted in previous sections.
- The defaults used can be mixed and matches; it works to request all defaults or just some of them.
The constructor functions new_first_variant(..)
are not provided for you.
However, it should be possible to tweak #[derive(new)]
to interact with
this RFC so that constructor functions are regained if so desired.
Unresolved questions
#[non_exhaustive]
-
What is the right interaction wrt.
#[non_exhaustive]
?In particular, if given the following definition:
#[non_exhaustive] pub struct Config { pub height: u32, pub width: u32, }
it could be possible to construct a
Config
like so, if the construction of types without default field values is allowed (to support semver changes):let config = Config { width: 640, height: 480, .. };
then adding a field to
Config
can only happen if and only if that field is provided a default value.This arrangement, while diminishing the usefulness of
#[non_exhaustive]
, makes the ruleset of the language simpler, more consistent, and also simplifies type checking as#[non_exhaustive]
is entirely ignored when checkingFoo { fields, .. }
expressions.As an alternative, users who desire the semantics described above can omit
#[non_exhaustive]
from their type and instead add a private defaulted field that has a ZST, if the construction of structs with private fields is allowed. If they are not, then the attribute is still relevant and needed to control the accepted code to force..
.
enum
variants
Currently #[derive(Default)]
only supports unit enum
variants. In this RFC
we propose supporting ..
on struct enum
variants. It would be nice to keep
the symmetry with struct
s and support #[derive(Default)]
on them, but it is
not absolutely necessary. RFC-3683 proposes that support. These two features
are technically orthogonal, but work well together.
Future possibilities
#[non_exhaustive]
interactions
This RFC doesn’t allow mixing default field values and #[non_exhaustive]
because of the interaction with the allowance to build struct literals
that have private fields:
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct Foo {
bar: i32 = 42,
}
// another crate
let _ = Foo { .. }; // Currently forbidden, but would be allowed by this RFC without the attribute
There are several options:
- Allow
#[non_exhaustive]
but deny the ability to build a struct literal when there are non-accessible fields with defaults - Disallow both
#[non_exhaustive]
and building struct literals with private fields in order to resolve the interaction some-time in the future, as enabling either ability is a backwards compatible change that strictly allows more code to work - Have additional rules on what the interactions are, like for example allow
building struct literals with private fields as long as the type isn’t
annotated with
#[non_exhaustive]
- Extend
#[non_exhaustive]
with arguments in order to specify the desired behavior - Change the defaults of
#[non_exhaustive]
and allow for the change in meaning of it being set
I propose to go for the maximally restrictive version of the default field values feature, and allow for future experimentation of which of these options best fits the language.
The following also needs to be specified:
#[non_exhaustive]
pub struct Foo;
// another crate
let _ = Foo { .. }; // Currently forbidden
Privacy: building struct
s with private defaulted fields
In this RFC we do not propose any changes to the normal visibility rules:
constructing a struct
with default fields requires those fields to be visible
in that scope.
Let’s consider a scenario where this comes into play:
pub mod foo {
pub struct Alpha {
beta: u8 = 42,
gamma: bool = true,
}
}
mod bar {
fn baz() {
let x = Alpha { .. };
}
}
Despite foo::bar
being in a different module than foo::Alpha
and despite
beta
and gamma
being private to foo::bar
, a Rust compiler could accept
the above snippet. It would be legal because when Alpha { .. }
expands to
Alpha { beta: 42, gamma: true }
, the fields beta
and gamma
can be
considered in the context of foo::Alpha
’s definition site rather than
bar::baz
’s definition site.
By permitting the above snippet, you are able to construct a default value
for a type more ergonomically with Foo { .. }
. Since it isn’t possible for
functions in beta
to access field
’s value, the value 42
or any other
remains at all times private to alpha
. Therefore, privacy, and by extension
soundness, is preserved.
This used to be the behavior the [Functional Record Update syntax had before RFC-0736, where we previously allowed for the construction of a value with private fields with values from a base expression.
If a user wishes to keep other modules from constructing a Foo
with
Foo { .. }
they can add, or keep, one private field without a default, or add
(for now) #[non_exhaustive]
, as mixing these two features is not allowed under
this RFC. Situations where this can be important include those where Foo
is
some token for some resource and where fabricating a Foo
may prove dangerous
or worse unsound. This is however no different than carelessly adding
#[derive(Default)]
.
Changing this behavior after stabilization of this RFC does present a potential foot-gun: if an API author relies on the privacy of a defaulted field to make a type unconstructable outside of its defining crate, then this change would cause the API to no longer be correct, needing the addition of a non-defaulted private field to keep its prior behavior. If we were to make this change, we could lint about the situation when all default values are private, which would be silenced by adding another non-defaulted private field.
Another alternative would be to allow this new behavior in an opt in manner, such as an attribute or item modifier:
pub mod foo {
#[allow_private_defaults(gamma)]
pub struct Alpha {
beta: u8 = 42,
gamma: bool = true,
}
}
pub mod foo {
struct Alpha {
pub(default) beta: u8 = 42,
pub(default) gamma: bool = true,
}
}
Additionally, the interaction between this privacy behavior and
#[non_exhaustive]
is fraught and requires additional discussion.
“Empty” types and types without default field values
Under this RFC, the following code isn’t specified one way or the other:
pub struct Foo;
let _ = Foo { .. }; // should be denied
I propose we disallow this at least initially. ..
can then only be used
if there is at least one default field. We might want to change this rule in
the future, but careful with how it would interact with #[non_exhaustive]
, as
it could accidentally allow for types that are not meant to be constructed
outside of a given crate to all of a sudden be constructable.
One alternative can be to provide an explicit opt-in attribute to allow for the use of default field values even if the type doesn’t currently have any:
#[allow(default_field_construction)]
pub struct Foo;
let _ = Foo { .. }; // ok
Use of _
on struct literals
On patterns, one can currently use field: _
to explicitly ignore a single
named field, in order to force a compilation error at the pattern use place
if a field is explicitly added to the type. One could envision a desire to
allow for the use of the same syntax during construction, as an explicit
expression to set a given default, but still fail to compile if a field has
been added to the type:
struct Foo {
bar: i32 = 42,
}
let _ = Foo {
bar: _,
};
Tuple structs and tuple variants
Although it could, this proposal does not offer a way to specify default values for tuple struct / variant fields. For example, you may not write:
#[derive(Default)]
struct Alpha(u8 = 42, bool = true);
#[derive(Default)]
enum Ingredient {
Tomato(TasteQuality, Color = Color::Red),
Lettuce,
}
While well-defined semantics could be given for these positional fields, there are some tricky design choices; in particular:
-
It’s unclear whether the following should be permitted:
#[derive(Default)] struct Beta(&'static str = "hello", bool);
In particular, the fields with defaults are not at the end of the struct. A restriction could imposed to enforce that. However, it would also be useful to admit the above definition of
Beta
so that#[derive(Default)]
can make use of"hello"
. -
The syntax
Alpha(..)
as an expression already has a meaning. Namely, it is sugar forAlpha(RangeFull)
. Thus unfortunately, this syntax cannot be used to meanAlpha(42, true)
. In newer editions, the syntaxAlpha(...)
(three dots) can be used for filling in defaults. This would ostensibly entail adding the pattern syntaxAlpha(...)
as well. -
As mentioned in the previous section,
_
could also be allowed instruct
literals. If so, then they would also be allowed in tuple literals, allowing us to use thestruct
in the prior snippet withBeta(_, true)
.
For these reasons, default values for positional fields are not included in this RFC and are instead left as a possible future extension.
Integration with structural records
In RFC 2584 structural records are proposed. These records are structural like tuples but have named fields. As an example, you can write:
let color = { red: 255u8, green: 100u8, blue: 70u8 };
which then has the type:
{ red: u8, green: u8, blue: u8 }
These can then be used to further emulate named arguments. For example:
fn open_window(config: { height: u32, width: u32 }) {
// logic...
}
open_window({ height: 720, width: 1280 });
Since this proposal introduces field defaults, the natural combination with structural records would be to permit them to have defaults. For example:
fn open_window(config: { height: u32 = 1080, width: u32 = 1920 }) {
// logic...
}
A coercion could then allow you to write:
open_window({ .. });
This could be interpreted as open_window({ RangeFull })
, see the previous
section for a discussion… alternatively open_window(_)
could be permitted
instead for general value inference where _
is a placeholder expression
similar to _
as a type expression placeholder
(i.e. a fresh and unconstrained unification variable).
If you wanted to override a default, you would write:
open_window({ height: 720, });
Note that the syntax used to give fields in structural records defaults belongs to the type grammar; in other words, the following would be legal:
type RGB = { red: u8 = 0, green: u8 = 0, blue: u8 = 0 };
let color: RGB = { red: 255, };
As structural records are not yet in the language, figuring out designs for how to extend this RFC to them is left as possible work for the future.
Integration with struct literal type inference
Yet another common requested feature is the introduction of struct literal type
inference in the form of elision of the name of an ADT literal when it can be
gleaned from context. This has sometimes been proposed as an alternative or
complementary to structural records. This would allow people to write
foo(_ { bar: 42 })
where the function argument type is inferred from the foo
definition. struct literal type inference with default struct fields would also
allow people to write APIs that “feel” like named function arguments when
calling them, although not when defining them.
struct Config {
height: u32 = 1080,
width: u32 = 1920,
}
fn open_window(config: Config) {
// logic...
}
open_window(_ { width: 800, .. });
Accessing default values from the type
If one were to conceptualize default field values in the following way:
struct Config {
height: u32 = Self::HEIGHT,
width: u32 = Self::WIDTH,
}
impl Config {
const HEIGHT: u32 = 1080,
const WIDTH: u32 = 1920,
}
It would follow that one should be able to access the value of these defaults
without constructing Config
, by writing Config::HEIGHT
. I do not believe
this should be done or advanced, but there’s nothing in this RFC that precludes
some mechanism to access these values in the future. With the RFC as written,
these values can be accessed by instantiating Config { .. }.height
, as long
as height
is visible in the current scope.
Note that the opposite is supported, writing that code will compile, so any
API author that wants to make these const
values on the type can:
struct Config {
height: u32 = Config::HEIGHT,
width: u32 = Config::WIDTH,
}
impl Config {
const HEIGHT: u32 = 1080,
const WIDTH: u32 = 1920,
}
Non-const values
Although there are strong reasons to restrict default values only to const values, it would be possible to allow non-const values as well, potentially allowed but linted against. Expanding the kind of values that can be accepted can be expanded in the future.
Of note, Default
implementations are not currently ~const
, but that is
something to be addressed by making them ~const
when suitable instead.
Lint against explicit impl Default
when #[derive(Default)]
would be ok
As a future improvement, we could nudge implementors towards leveraging the feature for less verbosity, but care will have to be taken in not being overly annoying, particularly for crates that have an MSRV that would preclude them from using this feature. This could be an edition lint, which would simplify implementation.