RFC: enable derive(From) for single-field structs

[Kobzol]

Previously discussed as Pre-RFC on IRLO.

Rendered

[clarfonthey]

Fully in support of this. A few things that probably should be elaborated:

• Generic single fields
• Transparent structs with extra zero-size fields like PhantomData

The transparent case, IMHO, is probably best left as a future extension, but it's an interesting case where Default impls on the extra fields would not be needed.

[Kobzol]

Fully in support of this. A few things that probably should be elaborated:

• Generic single fields
• Transparent structs with extra zero-size fields like PhantomData

The transparent case, IMHO, is probably best left as a future extension, but it's an interesting case where Default impls on the extra fields would not be needed.

PhantomData implements Default unconditionally for any T, so that would be fine. I agree it's best to leave it for "later" though.

Good point with the generics, I'll add a mention to the RFC.

[kennytm]

"For later" - perhaps it could recognize #3681 fields and automatically skip them as well.

#[derive(From)]
struct Foo {
    a: usize, // no #[from] needed, because all other fields are explicitly default'ed
    b: ZstTag = ZstTag,
    c: &'static str = "localhost",
}

// generates

impl From<usize> for Foo {
    fn from(a: usize) -> Self {
        Self { a, .. }
    }
}

OTOH we may still want the #[from] in the above case for uniformity if we want to support #[derive(From)] on all fields being defaulted

#[derive(From, Default)]
struct Foo2 {
    #[from] // <-- perhaps still want this
    a: u128 = 1,
    b: u16 = 8080,
}

[nielsle]

The crate named derive-new creates a new constructor, and it has several fancy options.

But perhaps this functionality belongs in a third party crate rather than the standard library.

[teor2345]

It might be worth noting here that impl From<Newtype> for Inner and impl Into<Inner> for Newtype have slightly different semantics. Using derive(Into) to mean impl From could be confusing for generic types where there is a coherence issue, even if it does imply an Into impl.

(I've had similar issues with the derive_more version.)

[kennytm]

the derive-macro's name does not necessarily correspond to the impl'ed trait name anymore since #3621 (currently named #[derive(CoercePointee)], which actually does impl CoerceUnsized + DispatchFromDyn.)

[Kobzol]

The #[derive(Into)] example is kind of hand-waving, I'm not sure if it's actually a good idea. I would like to avoid doing that in this RFC though, as that sounds like a separate can of worms, I explicitly tried to keep this RFC as simple as possible.

[teor2345]

the derive-macro's name does not necessarily correspond to the impl'ed trait name anymore since #3621 (currently named #[derive(CoercePointee)], which actually does impl CoerceUnsized + DispatchFromDyn.)

Understood! But my comment was more about the confusing semantics, than the exact name of the impl'd trait.

[tmccombs]

Honestly, for the impl From<NewType> for Inner case, I think I would prefer something like impl_from!(Newtype -> Inner) or a more generic impl_from!(Newtype -> Inner = |source| source.0) or impl_from!(Newtype -> Inner = self.0) (restricted to using fields of NewType)

Although it is a little annoying, to have to repeat the type of Inner.

[kennytm]

But my comment was more about the confusing semantics

I don't think there is any name more appropriate than #[derive(Into)] especially if this RFC is using #[derive(From)]. The final effect you get is still having an impl Into<Inner> for Self effectively, through the intermediate impl From<Self> for Inner + the blanket impl.

See JelteF/derive_more#13 for a brief discussion how derive_more still chooses to name it #[derive(Into)].

[joshtriplett]

I'd love to have a derive in the other direction, but full support for making that future work and not part of this RFC.

[Kobzol]

The crate named derive-new creates a new constructor, and it has several fancy options.

But perhaps this functionality belongs in a third party crate rather than the standard library.

While new constructors are pretty common, I would say that it's too opinionated for it to be included in the stdlib, as it's not a standard (library) trait like From is. In any case, that would be a separate RFC :)

[joshtriplett]

I think this proposal makes sense as written, and it's simple and straightforward.

Should we allow derive(From) on single-field structs, to impl From<FieldType> for Struct?

@rfcbot merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry
• @traviscross

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.