Remove the need to use tuple for enum of enums

help
#1

Hi.

Is it possible to make this code work without having FileExtension be made up of tuples for SubtitleExtension and VideoExtension?
Play Ground

#2

I see no FileExtension enum and no tuples :confused:

#3

In the code presented, it is not made up of tuples.

#4

This is not considered two tuples?

#[derive(Debug, Clone, Eq, PartialEq)]
pub enum FileExtension {
    Subtitle(SubtitleExtension),
    Video(VideoExtension),
}
#5

A tuple in Rust is a type like (String, i32), or (), there’s also single-element tuples written e.g. as (Foo,).

There’s also “tuple-structs” which are structs that follow a tuple-like syntax. This is about the syntax of

  • construction
  • accessing fields

and it is – crucially – syntax only that distinguishes tuple-structs from other structs. Tuple-structs don’t have field names, but the fields are identified by their order. You access them by index, e.g. foo.0 or by destructuring let Foo(x, y) = foo; while ordinary structs use field names e.g. foo.bar, or destructuring let Bar { number: x, flag: y } = bar;.

E.g. a tuple struct definition can look like

struct Foo(i32, bool);

while an “ordinary” struct looks like

struct Bar {
    number: i32,
    flag: bool,
}

Finally, there’s enums, which have enum variants whose declaration mirrors struct definitions.

Enum variants are not types, so there are no tuple, and not even a tuple-struct in an enum like

enum Foo {
    Variant(i32, bool),
    AnotherVariant(float),
}

but Foo::Variant and Foo::AnotherVariant are … well I don’t actually know if there’s official terminology … but you could call them tuple-struct-style enum variants or something like that. Here’s an enum that also has a unit-struct-style variant and an ordinary-struct-style variant

enum Baz {
    Variant(i32, bool),
    UnitVariant,
    AnotherVariant {
        field: f32,
    },
}

Enum fields are accessed by pattern matching; the difference between the different styles of variants is only syntax, too: Constructors and patterns look different, accordingly. E.g.

let baz1 = Bar::Variant(42, true);
let baz2 = Bar::UnitVariant;
let baz3 = Bar::AnotherVariant { field: 1.5 };
let baz4: Baz = …;
match baz4 {
    Baz::Variant(x, y) => …,
    Baz::UnitVariant => …,
    Baz::AnotherVariant { field: z } => …,
}

P.S.: There’s actually one more difference beyond syntax: Calling the constructors of tuple-structs and tuple-struct-style enum variants doesn’t only look a lot like a function-call, these constructors can also be used as a function. E.g. for struct Foo(i32);, you can then create a function pointer let foo_constructor: fn(i32) -> Foo = Foo; or use the constructor Foo where a closure is expected.

5 Likes
#6

This may be off-topic, but I suggest

impl std::str::FromStr for FileExtension {
    type Err = ExtensionError;
    fn from_str(input: &str) -> Result<Self, Self::Err> {
        let lowered = input.to_ascii_lowercase();
        lowered.parse().map(FileExtension::Subtitle)
            .or_else(|_| lowered.parse().map(FileExtension::Video) )
            .map_err(|_| ExtensionError::Err(input.to_string()) )
    }
}

To avoid duplication.

1 Like
#7

This looks good. I will give it a spin.

I was hoping to have a nicer implementation.

#8

Thanks for this,. It worked really well.

#9

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. We invite you to open a new topic if you have further questions or comments.