Tracking issue for RFC 2361, "Simpler alternative dbg!() macro"

[Centril]

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "Simpler alternative dbg!() macro" (rust-lang/rfcs#2361).

Steps:

• Implement the RFC: #54317
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on forge)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on forge)

Unresolved questions:

There are none.

[Centril]

I am working on this :)

[yoshuawuyts]

I just tried this out, and something that was unexpected for me was that it dbg!() can only take a single value. I think this might be because most other printers I've used to this point support this (e.g. JS console.log(x, y), Rust println!("{:?}, {:?}", x, y), Bash echo $x $y).

I didn't see this mentioned in the RFC anywhere, but it's possible this was brought up before and now falls under "Unbounded bikeshedding". I don't know if it does, but figured it might be worth sharing my experience in the off chance this hadn't been brought up before.

edit (2018-09-25): I just re-read the proposal and found the tuples entry. I guess that answers it, but yeah it still was something unexpected to me. Ah well.

Expected

let x = 1;
let y = 2;
dbg!(x, y);

Current

let x = 1;
let y = 2;
dbg!(x);
dbg!(y);

[SimonSapin]

I suppose one alternative to the tuple discontinuity could be to return nothing at all when more than one argument is provided.

[Centril]

The original RFC, rust-lang/rfcs#2173, considered it and dealt with this by giving you back a tuple; e.g. dbg!(a, b, c) : (typeof(a), typeof(b), typeof(c)). If we're going to support multiple arguments then I think that is the natural approach. Not returning anything would be surprising imo.

[SimonSapin]

And, to repeat the argument there: if dbg!(a, b, c) : (typeof(a), typeof(b), typeof(c)) and dbg!(a, b) : (typeof(a), typeof(b)) etc, should dbg!(a) : (typeof(a),) (a one-item tuple)? If not, why not?

[Centril]

@SimonSapin because if you consider (a) then typeof( (a) ) == typeof( a ), but if you consider (a, b, c) then typeof( (a, b, c) ) == ( typeof(a), typeof(b), typeof(c) ), and finally if you consider (a,) then typeof( (a,) ) == ( typeof(a), ).

I think the consistent thing to do if you want to pass multiple arguments is to consider what the result would be if you removed the prefix dbg!, and then you would have:

dbg! (a) : typeof(a)
     (a) : typeof(a)

dbg! (a,) : (typeof(a),) // note the one-tuple type
     (a,) : (typeof(a),) // note the one-tuple type

dbg! (a, b) : (typeof(a), typeof(b))
     (a, b) : (typeof(a), typeof(b))

dbg! (a, b, c) : (typeof(a), typeof(b), typeof(c))
     (a, b, c) : (typeof(a), typeof(b), typeof(c))

This is symmetrical with how the language behaves and so surprises should be fewer.

[SimonSapin]

Exclamation mark macros invocations with parentheses are very close in syntax to function calls. The single-item tuple trailing comma syntax special case is specific to tuples, it does not apply to function calls: Box::new(foo,) is the same as Box::new(foo). In your dbg! (a,) example you inserted a space between the macro name and its arguments that is to present in more typical style.

Whatever we do about other cases, I think dbg!(a,) should be the same as dbg!(a).

[Centril]

@SimonSapin I inserted the space to make the consistency I'm talking about more clear ;)

I think it is useful to think specifically about dbg! (rather than other macros...) in terms of what happens when you remove it, because that is how I think it will be used; e.g. you tack on dbg! and what tacked it onto gets printed.

For example, one starts out with let foo = (a, b);, then one just changes it to let foo = dbg!(a, b);. This is as easy as copy-pasting dbg! in front of all the places you want debugged and it generally works (up to precedence issues with binary operators and method calls) -- I think that's a valuable property to have.

I do think that the behavior I noted above is more consistent than not outputting anything when multiple arguments are passed.

Of course, another option is to not accept multiple arguments at all.

[SimonSapin]

I think dbg!(a,) should be the same as dbg!(a)

I feel strongly about this.

It seems that proposing otherwise was only a reaction to my earlier comment about the discontinuity between the single-arg v.s. multiple args. I’d rather live with that discontinuity than making a trailing comma significant.

[SimonSapin]

For example, one starts out with let foo = (a, b);, then one just changes it to let foo = dbg!(a, b);.

This seems like a very artificial example constructed specifically for this argument. I think it is exceedingly rare that the debugged expression just happens to be a tuple literal. The normal case is that you add dbg!( and ) around an expression, not just dbg! with parens that just happen to already be in the right place.

[Centril]

If you are not tacking on dbg! onto an already existing expression such as (a, b) or (a,) - which I do agree is the normal case, then it seems to me that dbg!(a, b); (note the semi) is being written specifically to write things faster and to save characters (e.g. for ergonomics).

However, writing dbg!(a,); seems like a mistake someone made and not something written intentionally; if you do make such a mistake, then it will still work and a will be printed out because you are not using the resulting computation and instead you are throwing the value away, and so the resulting type is irrelevant.

The only problem arises when you remove the ; and write something like let foo = dbg!(a,); -- in these cases I think it is more likely that you already had let foo = (a, b, c); and so you want let foo = dbg!(a, b, c); to be a tuple.

[yoshuawuyts]

It's been two weeks since the last update on this thread, so in order to help keep the discussion progressing I'm making an attempt to summarize the discussion so far. My hope is that by making explicit which points are agreed / disagreed on, we can keep this proposal going.

I hope I got everything right here; if I didn't let me know and I'll update this post. I hope this comes in useful. Thanks!

Summary

Resolved

• Being able to do dbg!(a, b, c) is useful when debugging.
• The return type of dbg!(a, b, c) should be a tuple of (a, b, c).
• The return type of dbg!(a) should be a.

Unresolved

• Should dbg!(a,) be allowed?
• If dbg!(a,) is allowed, what should the return type be?

Discussion

I personally hope that the parts that are agreed on are enough that they can be moved forward with, allowing to focus the remainder of the discussion on the unresolved questions. That would hopefully put the dbg!() API further on the path to stabilization, making it available for more people!

[Centril]

@yoshuawuyts Thanks for the summary :)

That would hopefully put the dbg!() API further on the path to stabilization, making it available for more people!

I think it should be possible to stabilize the macro as-is and then extend it further with multiple arguments, specialization (when that is stable), and other nice things in a backwards compatible way... Are there any concerns that prevent that?

[Centril]

cc @oli-obk @alexreg As a general question... do we have any thoughts about how you debug during CTFE? It would be nice if there were some mechanism to do so in a const fn but which is a no-op at runtime? (this is unlikely to be solved on this tracking issue but I thought I'd record it somewhere less ephemeral... we should probably spawn of an issue from this...)

[alexreg]

Probably needs a separate issue, yeah. It's going to require special compiler support to get around the usual const-restrictions on this sort of thing (I/O).

[oli-obk]

I agree, let's discuss this in a separate issue. We can get around the const restrictions by making the debug printer an intrinsic

[alexreg]

@oli-obk Aha yes, that crossed my mind, but I wasn't sure if it worked. Good to hear.

[Centril]

@SimonSapin How do you feel about landing this as-is? We can revisit extensions such as multiple arguments and such later? Would be nice to have this in 1.32. :)

[SimonSapin]

The unresolved question is what to do about dbg!(x,). It is currently not matched by the macro, so we can compatibly add it later. Landing as-is sounds good to me.

@rfcbot fcp merge

[rfcbot]

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

• @Kimundi
• @SimonSapin
• @alexcrichton
• @dtolnay
• @sfackler
• @withoutboats

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), 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!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[Centril]

🎉🎈 Woohoo...! 1.32 is gonna be amazing! =P 🎈🎉

[Centril]

Stabilization PR filed in #56395.

[Centril]

After stabilizing, we might want to? keep this issue open for discussion about extensions and as a landing place for users who want to discuss dbg!.

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

[scottmcm]

@Centril

After stabilizing, we might want to? keep this issue open for discussion

I don't think it should stay open. Once the RFC is implemented and stabilized, this is done. People can use IRLO threads or the RFCs repo if they want to have discussions about things or propose changes.

[Centril]

The stabilization PR was just merged so there's nothing left to do and thus we can close this issue.