Request: dummy_impl macro

1

We can already use macros for a "dummy implementation" of an expression:

fn do_something_complex() -> T {
    todo!()
}

Now and again I've wanted a "dummy trait object". So:

trait T {
    type Q;
    fn ask(q: &Q) -> bool;
}

struct S;
dummy_impl!(T<Q = ()> for S);
// generates:
// impl T for S {
//     type Q = ();
//     fn ask(q: &Q) -> bool { todo!() }
// }

Here we specify Q = (); in this example it is not strictly necessary but in cases where the associated type has trait bounds it may be.

The biggest issue: macros can't do this due to lack of introspection for the trait T (even with proc-macros).

So, questions:

  • is such a thing possible with compiler built-ins?
  • is it desirable enough to be worth it?
  • should it be exposed in std?

Motivation:

  • writing tests on bounded generic functions may require a concrete type
  • writing the impl by hand can be tedious, especially if the trait is frequently modified
2

While I don't usually suggest "just use an IDE", it seems like, in this case, this might be the right solution?

impl

3 Likes
3

Yes, probably.

No, probably.

Doesn't copy-pasting solve this, even if you don't use an IDE?

1 Like
4

In this particular case, I wanted to generate a dummy trait object for use in a doc test demonstrating usage that would be completely unrelated if not for a type bound. Wasting (hidden) lines on the doc-test and having to update them should the underlying trait change (likely) is undesirable.

Not a big use-case, but copy+paste / IDE auto-complete don't actually solve it.

5

For that sepecific case, the following works

/// ```
/// # fn give_me_T<S: T>(S: S) {
///    your docs here
/// # }
/// ```
3 Likes
6

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.