trait 对象如何将带有泛型方法的 trait 作为参数？

Question

So trait objects can't have methods with generics - that looks fine. But in this language the only ways to use abstraction mechanism are available through generics and trait objects. Which means that for each trait I have to decide beforehand if it can be used as an object at all and use dyn in there everywhere instead of impl. And all taken traits inside it must be made same way to support this. This feel very ugly. Can you suggest anything or tell me why it's designed this way?

fn main() {}

// some abstracted thing
trait Required {
    fn f(&mut self, simple: i32);
}

// this trait doesn't know that it's going to be used by DynTrait
// it just takes Required as an argument
// nothing special
trait UsedByDyn {
    // this generic method doesn't allow this trait to be dyn itself
    // no dyn here: we don't know about DynTrait in this scope
    fn f(&mut self, another: impl Required);
}

// this trait needs to use UsedByDyn as a function argument
trait DynTrait {
    // since UsedByDyn uses generic methods it can't be dyn itself
    // the trait `UsedByDyn` cannot be made into an object
    //fn f(&mut self, used: Box<dyn UsedByDyn>);

    // we can't use UsedByDyn without dyn either otherwise Holder can't use us as dyn
    // the trait `DynTrait` cannot be made into an object
    // fn f(&mut self, used: impl UsedByDyn);

    // how to use UsedByDyn here?
}

struct Holder {
    CanBeDyn: Box<dyn DynTrait>,
}

Answer 1

Which means that for each trait I have to decide beforehand if it can be used as an object at all and use dyn in there everywhere instead of impl.

You can do that, but fortunately it's not the only option.

You can also write your traits as you normally would, using generics where appropriate. If/when you need trait objects, define a new object-safe trait that you use locally, and that exposes the subset of the API you actually need in that place.

For example, let's say you have or use a non-object-safe trait:

trait Serialize {
    /// Serialize self to the given IO sink
    fn serialize(&self, sink: &mut impl io::Write);
}

That trait is not usable as a trait object because it (presumably to ensure maximum efficiency) has a generic method. But that needn't stop your code from using trait objects to access the functionality of the trait. Say you need to box Serialize values in order to hold them in a vector, which you will save into a file en masse :

// won't compile
struct Pool {
    objs: Vec<Box<dyn Serialize>>,
}

impl Pool {
    fn add(&mut self, obj: impl Serialize + 'static) {
        self.objs.push(Box::new(obj) as Box<dyn Serialize>);
    }

    fn save(&self, file: &Path) -> io::Result<()> {
        let mut file = io::BufWriter::new(std::fs::File::create(file)?);
        for obj in self.objs.iter() {
            obj.serialize(&mut file);
        }
        Ok(())
    }
}

The above doesn't compile because Serialize is not object safe. But - you can easily define a new object-safe trait that fulfills the needs of Pool :

// object-safe trait, Pool's implementation detail
trait SerializeFile {
    fn serialize(&self, sink: &mut io::BufWriter<std::fs::File>);
}

// Implement `SerializeFile` for any T that implements Serialize
impl<T> SerializeFile for T
where
    T: Serialize,
{
    fn serialize(&self, sink: &mut io::BufWriter<std::fs::File>) {
        // here we can access `Serialize` because `T` is a concrete type
        Serialize::serialize(self, sink);
    }
}

Now Pool pretty much just works, using dyn SerializeFile ( playground ):

struct Pool {
    objs: Vec<Box<dyn SerializeFile>>,
}

impl Pool {
    fn add(&mut self, obj: impl Serialize + 'static) {
        self.objs.push(Box::new(obj) as Box<dyn SerializeFile>);
    }

    // save() defined the same as before
    ...
}

Defining a separate object-safe trait may seem like unnecessary work - if the original trait is simple enough, you can certainly make it object-safe to begin with. But some traits are either too general or too performance-oriented to be made object-safe from the get-go, and in that case it's good to remember that it's ok to keep them generic. When you do need an object-safe version, it will typically be for a concrete task where a custom object-safe trait implemented in terms of the original trait will do the job.

Answer 2

I used the @user4815162342's answer but made my own version that doesn't require replacing a non-object-friendly trait with a concrete type.

struct Holder {
    dyn_traits: Vec<Box<dyn DynTrait>>,
}

// this trait doesn't know that it's going to be used by DynTrait
// it just takes ObjectFriendly as an argument
// nothing special
trait ObjectUnfriendly {
    // this generic method doesn't allow this trait to be dyn itself
    // no dyn here: we don't know about DynTrait in this scope
    fn f(&mut self, another: &impl ObjectFriendly);
    fn f2(&mut self, another: &mut impl ObjectFriendly);
    fn f3(&mut self, another: impl ObjectFriendly);
}

trait ObjectFriendly {
    fn f(&mut self, simple: i32);
    fn f2(&self, simple: i32);
}

// this trait needs to use the trait above as a function argument
trait DynTrait {
    // since that trait uses generic methods it can't be dyn itself
    // the trait cannot be made into an object
    //fn f(&mut self, used: Box<dyn ObjectUnfriendly>);

    // we can't use that trait without dyn either otherwise Holder can't use us as dyn
    // the trait `DynTrait` cannot be made into an object
    // fn f(&mut self, used: impl ObjectUnfriendly);

    // how to use ObjectUnfriendly here?
    // we use our own extension trait that is object-friendly
    fn f(&mut self, used: dyn NowObjectFriendly);
}

// our own object-friendly version
trait NowObjectFriendly {
    // if arguments are ObjectFriendly - we are lucky
    fn f(&mut self, another: &dyn ObjectFriendly);
    fn f2(&mut self, another: &mut dyn ObjectFriendly);
    fn f3(&mut self, another: Box<dyn ObjectFriendly>);

    // if not - we can just accept the specific struct we need
    // fn f3(&mut self, another: SomeImpl);

    // or do the same thing by making an extension trait
    // fn f3(&mut self, another: Box<dyn ObjectFriendly2Ex>);
}

// delegate implementation
impl<T: ObjectUnfriendly> NowObjectFriendly for T {
    fn f(&mut self, another: &dyn ObjectFriendly) {
        self.f(&ObjectFriendly2AsImpl(another));
    }

    fn f2(&mut self, another: &mut dyn ObjectFriendly) {
        self.f2(&mut ObjectFriendly2AsImpl(another));
    }

    fn f3(&mut self, another: Box<dyn ObjectFriendly>) {
        self.f3(ObjectFriendly2AsImpl(another));
    }

    // if not object friendly - we can just accept the specific struct we need
    // fn f3(&mut self, another: SomeImpl) {
    //     SomeImpl::f3(self, another);
    // }

    // or do the same thing for that trait by making another extension trait
    // fn f3(&mut self, another: Box<dyn ObjectFriendly2Ex>) {
    //     self.f3(another);
    // }
}

// for this delegation to work
// we need to make it convertible to impl

// can't implement foreign traits on foreign types
struct ObjectFriendly2AsImpl<T>(T);

impl ObjectFriendly for ObjectFriendly2AsImpl<&dyn ObjectFriendly> {
    fn f(&mut self, simple: i32) {
        unreachable!()
    }

    fn f2(&self, simple: i32) {
        (*self.0).f2(simple)
    }
}

impl ObjectFriendly for ObjectFriendly2AsImpl<&mut dyn ObjectFriendly> {
    fn f(&mut self, simple: i32) {
        (*self.0).f(simple)
    }

    fn f2(&self, simple: i32) {
        (*self.0).f2(simple)
    }
}

impl ObjectFriendly for ObjectFriendly2AsImpl<Box<dyn ObjectFriendly>> {
    fn f(&mut self, simple: i32) {
        (*self.0).f(simple)
    }

    fn f2(&self, simple: i32) {
        (*self.0).f2(simple)
    }
}

If there is a macro for this or more lightweight implementation please comment.