Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions

[nikomatsakis]

This is a tracking issue for the RFC "3086" (rust-lang/rfcs#3086).
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(macro_metavar_expr)].

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

• Implement the RFC (cc @markbt -- has there been work done here already?)
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)

Unresolved questions and bugs

• Figure out problems around hygiene

Implementation history

[markbt]

There is a working prototype on the markbt/rust/metavariable_expressions branch. This needs feature gating, and there are a couple of TODOs to resolve, but it's otherwise in reasonable shape. I'm planning to work on it over the coming weeks.

[markbt]

Update (2021-04-07)

I've not yet started work on productionizing the prototype on the markbt/rust/metavariable_expressions branch. I plan to start later this month, free time permitting.

[markbt]

Update (2021-05-09)

I still haven't started on this yet as some stuff came up last month that prevented from having the time to work on it. It's still in my plan to work on it, and hopefully I'll have some time soon.

[markbt]

Update (2021-06-29)

Still no progress, as I haven't had any spare time to work on this project. I'm still planning to work on it, and hopefully will get some time soon.

[joshtriplett]

@markbt If you don't expect to find the bandwidth in the near future, would you potentially be interested in seeking help in the form of another owner for this initiative? If you're still interested in driving this, that's fine, but if you'd like us to switch gears from pinging you to broadcasting that the project could use help, we'd be happy to do that.

[markbt]

I'd be happy with any help if there's someone available. I still plan to work on it, but personal stuff is getting in the way at the moment. Sorry about that.

To recap: I have a working prototype on my branch at https://github.com/markbt/rust/tree/metavariable_expressions . The next steps are to rebase that onto the latest master, and then polish it up so that it's ready for inclusion. Then there's also the doc work to make sure the new feature is documented well. Help with any of this would be appreciated.

[c410-f3r]

@markbt Are you still working on this feature? If not, then I can pick up from where you stopped

[markbt]

I haven't had a chance to work on it for a while. I'm still interested in it, so happy to help out if you're picking it up, it just had to take a back burner relative to some personal things.I have a branch with a prototype implementation on my github fork. It's likely very out of date, so will need rebasing up to something more recent. Or perhaps you can just use it for inspiration and start from scratch. Let me know if I can help at all, although I don't have a lot of free time at the moment.

[c410-f3r]

Thank you @markbt

I will take a look at the branch and then get in touch if any questions arise

[c410-f3r]

The implementation has been merged so please try testing the feature as much as possible to find any potential bugs

[mark-i-m]

Thanks @c410-f3r for all your hard work!

From my limited experience with this feature, I have some concerns about the design:

• The depth arguments are confusing because some of the functions count up from the most nested depth and some count down from the outermost level.
• Also, indexing does not universally start at 0, and an index of 1 means different things for different meta-variable expressions.
• I find the semantics of count confusing and hard to keep track of. Which level is it counting? Does depth 1 mean count everything or count the 2nd nested loop? Does depth 1 mean count everything or count only the outermost loop? Maybe a name like total_count would be clearer? Maybe the depth option should not be optional? Maybe count should be removed, and people can just sum the output of length?

[c410-f3r]

Thank you @mark-i-m for reviewing #93545 and for all your contributions to the compiler.

Hehehehe... You, me and @petrochenkov had trouble trying to understand this feature

• The depth arguments are confusing because some of the functions count up from the most nested depth and some count down from the outermost level.

Indeed! It is much easier cognitively to keep everything with the same direction instead of having count going from outer-to-inner and index/length from inner-to-outer. Although I am not sure if semantic would be impacted.

• Also, indexing does not universally start at 0, and an index of 1 means different things for different meta-variable expressions.
• I find the semantics of count confusing and hard to keep track of. Which level is it counting? Does depth 1 mean count everything or count the 2nd nested loop? Does depth 1 mean count everything or count only the outermost loop? Maybe a name like total_count would be clearer? Maybe the depth option should not be optional? Maybe count should be removed, and people can just sum the output of length?

Yeap, someone that wrote ${count(foo)} will probably expect that ${count(foo, 1)} will return some value related to the amount of foos instead of the actual number of outer repetitions.

If repetitions are nested, then an optional depth parameter can be used to limit the number of nested repetitions that are counted. For example, a macro expansion like:

${count(x, 1)} ${count(x, 2)} ${count(x, 3)} $( a $( b $( $x )* )* )*

The three values this expands to are the number of outer-most repetitions (the number of times a would be generated), the sum of the number of middle repetitions (the number of times b would be generated), and the total number of repetitions of $x.

https://github.com/markbt/rfcs/blob/macro_metavar_expr/text/0000-macro-metavar-expr.md#count

And as you said, throwing nested loops into the equation will alter indexing making understanding even harder. Not to mention mixing other meta-variable expressions like length 🙁.

#![feature(macro_metavar_expr)]

fn main() {
    macro_rules! mac {
        ( $( [ $( $i:ident )* ] )* ) => {{
            // ***** No loop *****
            
            println!("{}", ${count(i)}); // 5
            println!("{}", ${count(i, 0)}); // 2
            
            // Same as ${count(i)}
            //println!("{}", ${count(i, 1)});
            
            // Fobirdden. Index out of bounds
            //println!("{}", ${count(i, 2)});
            
            // ***** Outer-most loop *****
            
            $(
                println!("{}", ${count(i)}); // 3 and 2
                
                // Same as ${count(i)}
                //println!("{}", ${count(i, 0)});
                
                // Fobirdden. Index out of bounds
                //println!("{}", ${count(i, 1)});
            )*

            // ***** Outer-most and inner-most loops *****
            
            $(
                $(
                    ${ignore(i)}

                    // Forbidden. Can't be placed inside the inner-most repetition
                    //println!("{}", ${count(i)});
                )*
            )*
        }};
    }
    
    mac!([a b c] [d e]);
}

Maybe total_count and a mandatory depth can be nice modifications but I am also not sure about the removal of count (Useful for nested stuff). Overall, I think that users will have a hard time even with a good set of documentation.

As for myself, I learned to accept the things as they are currently defined in RFC, hehehehe 😁

[c410-f3r]

Any thoughts @markbt?

[camsteffen]

• The depth arguments are confusing because some of the functions count up from the most nested depth and some count down from the outermost level.

+1. Being inconsistent here seems out of the question. I would vote for "distance from innermost", agreeing with the rationale in the RFC:

The meaning of the depth parameter in index and count originally counted inwards from the outer-most nesting. This was changed to count outwards from the inner-most nesting so that expressions can be copied to a different nesting depth without needing to change them.

Adding to this, having the depth parameters represent "distance from outermost" will lead to the following (unfortunate) user story:

I have a macro build_foo!. I want to refactor it to build_many_foos!, so I wrap the macro definition with $(...),*. Now all of the depth parameters are off by one so I increment them.

The only bad thing is that the English meaning of "depth" lends to "distance from outermost". But this is less important IMO.

We could support both by having negative numbers (e.g. ${index(-1)}) work as "distance from innermost", but that is probably not necessary. You'd also have to decide what to do with 0.

---

Maybe count should be removed, and people can just sum the output of length?

Yes this might be a "less is more" scenario. You could potentially get what you need using expressions of index and length, like ${length(1)+index(2)} or ${length(1)*length(2)}, but we'd have to support math within ${..}. Edit: this doesn't work

	Position	Total
Current repetition	index	length
All repetitions		count

---

Has it been considered to make theses values bind-able within the macro pattern? This would take depth out of the picture completely since the variables are syntactically attached to a repetition. Inspired by ngFor in Angular.

macro_rules! mac {
    ($[i=index, l=length]($word:ident),*) => {
        $(println!("{}/{}: {}", $i, $l, stringify!($word));)*
    };
}

[cybersoulK]

@CAD97 for real? $$ and $ignore were supposed to be stabilized for over a year now.
have you actually had a need for nested macros? i do, and this is a must requirement, why block stabilization because of $$crate, i never used it, and i can't se myself using $crate at all

[cybersoulK]

i am guessing the solution would be to merge $$ and $ignore ASAP,
and make usage of "$crate" behind an unstable feature until you decide what do to with $$crate

[CAD97]

have you actually had a need for nested macros?

Yes, and I discovered the interesting behavior of $crate when writing a macro-expanded macro-expanded macro definition making use of $$ (at that time; it now uses stable-compatible techniques). I would absolutely and immediately benefit from the stabilization of both $$ and ${ignore} (or even better for my use cases, some kind of $:empty matcher).

i can't se myself using $crate at all [...] make usage of "$crate" behind an unstable feature

$crate is stable and very needed when defining resilient exported macros to be used by downstream crates. If your macro is #[macro_export]ed, you should be using $crate to refer to any item defined in your crate or upstream to you, such that downstream usage can't shadow your expected names and cause issues.

This becomes extremely necessary when using unsafe in the macro expansion, such that you can be absolutely sure that you completely control what code gets trusted and aren't exporting a macro making a soundness assumption that the user won't shadow any names that it uses.

until you decide what do to with $$crate

I originally claimed it wouldn't be possible to stabilize $$crate without

$$ and $ignore were supposed to be stabilized for over a year now.

$$ was in fact temporarily accepted for stabilization before it was backed out, but ${ignore} was not. ${ignore} was originally part of the proposed stabilization PR, but it was dropped before it was accepted due to design concerns.

why block stabilization

I don't actually have any power to directly block stabilization, let alone to revert an accepted stabilization on beta; if T-lang¹ didn't agree with my concern about $$ they could just ignore me and stabilize it anyway. I was the one to post the revert PR, but I did so on request of T-lang.

Though tbf, I'm not blameless; I've proposed various resolutions and haven't followed up with an implementation. (This reminds me, I should ideally try my hand at properly implementing my desired fix for $crate semantics relatively soon, so it has a chance of landing for edition2024.) Time and motivation and hard to find concurrently, and no unpaid volunteer owes the project anything.

Footnotes

1. Technically, I am now a part of T-opsem (thus the [Member] tag), which is a subteam of T-lang. However, 1) I was not at the time of the revert (T-opsem didn't even exist), and 2) that membership does not confer T-lang membership or powers. Even if it did for some reason, I'd defer to the rest of T-lang on this. ↩

[cybersoulK]

@CAD97

$crate feels hacky to me. With macros 1.0, i force the user to import the entire scope of the macro, if it requires it.

I admit i am not an expert, but it might be worth to read my ideas for macro 2.0:

#39412 (comment)

[c410-f3r]

Proposal

In hopes of making some progress, two approaches based on the feedback provided so far will be proposed here. Feel free to discuss alternatives that will lead to consensus if any of the following suggestions are not desired.

1. Innermost vs Outermost indexes

count uses outermost indices while length uses innermost indices and this inconsistency creates unnecessary confusion.

To improve the situation, the order of all elements should start from the innermost index to the outermost index.

Mentions

• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)
• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)
• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)
• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)
• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)
• Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions #83527 (comment)

2. $ prefix

Taking count as an example, should the syntax be count(some_metavariable) or count($some_metavariable)? The original RFC specified that metavariable expressions should refer metavariables without $ prefixes but there were some arguments in favour of $.

For unblocking purposes, the requirement of $ is being suggested. Such enforcement doesn't appear to incur a significant overhead besides the additional typing and interactions with $$ or multiple $$s shouldn't be a problem as long as the final expanded $ refers a metavariable.

Mentions

• Stabilize $$ in Rust 1.63.0 #95860 (comment)
• Stabilize $$ in Rust 1.63.0 #95860 (comment)
• Stabilize $$ in Rust 1.63.0 #95860 (comment)
• Stabilize $$ in Rust 1.63.0 #95860 (comment)
• https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/macro-meta-functions/16743
• https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/macro.20metafunctions.20vs.20eager.20expansion

[markbt]

It's nice to see this progressing. We recently found some more places where this would be useful, e.g. in constructing a tuple from a method that takes indexes using an expression like ( $( ${ignore($t)} row.get(${index()}), )* ).

1. Indexes

For ${index()} and ${length()} I think the inner-to-outer ordering is important, as it means you can move these expressions without having to re-index them.

For ${count(...)} I think either order is fine. I chose outer-to-inner as to my mind the count proceeds from outside to inside, but actually it doesn't matter. For reference I use this diagram to think about it (based on the definitions in the previous comment):

    .-- current
    |   .-- proposed
    |   |
N = 2   0  ----------.                     (default)
N = 1   1  -------.  |
N = 0   2  ----.  |  |
               v  v  v
$count($x, N)  [  (  $x $length(L)  )  ]
L = 0                <----------->         (default)
L = 1             <----------------->
L = 2           <--------------------->

This proposal switches the order of N, but it's fine for it to mean either way.

2. $ prefix

Again, I think this is fine. In fact, for $ignore it makes more sense, as we could later generalize it to more complex expressions with side-effects.

3. The $$crate problem.

Has anything been decided about this? A possible alternative would be to define ${crate()} which expands to the same thing as $crate but correctly in the case of recursive macros. It could be a warning to specify $$crate, and users should use $${crate()} instead, with ordinary $crate essentially becoming shorthand for ${crate()}.

[nikomatsakis]

Note from lang team: we discussed @c410-f3r's proposed changes in our meeting today and agree we should move forward, but please update the comment at top of the issue. More here.

[rslife]

Nesting ignores issue:

#![feature(macro_metavar_expr)]

struct Foo(i32);
struct Bar(i32);
struct Baz(i32);

macro_rules! mk_p {
    ($p_ty:ty $(, foo=$foo:ident)? $(, bar=$bar:ident)?) => {
        $(${ignore($foo)} mk_p!($p_ty, foo=$foo, foo_or_bar=foo_or_bar); )?
        $(${ignore($bar)} mk_p!($p_ty, bar=$bar, foo_or_bar=foo_or_bar); )?
    };
    ($p_ty:ty $(, foo=$foo:ident)? $(, bar=$bar:ident)? $(, baz=$baz:ident)? $(, foo_or_bar=$foo_or_bar:ident)?) => {
        impl $p_ty {
            fn p(&self) {
                $(
                    ${ignore($baz)}
                    eprintln!("baz={}", self.0);
                )?

                $(
                    ${ignore($foo_or_bar)}
                    let i = self.0 + 5;
                    $(
                        ${ignore($foo)}
                        eprintln!("foo={i}");
                    )?
                    $(
                        ${ignore($bar)}
                        eprintln!("bar={i}");
                    )?
                )?
            }
        }
    };
}

mk_p!(Foo, foo=foo);
mk_p!(Bar, bar=bar);
mk_p!(Baz, baz=baz);


fn main() {}

Error:

error: meta-variable `foo_or_bar` repeats 1 time, but `bar` repeats 0 times
  --> src/main.rs:20:18
   |
20 |                   $(
   |  __________________^
21 | |                     ${ignore($foo_or_bar)}
22 | |                     let i = self.0 + 5;
23 | |                     $(
...  |
30 | |                     )?
31 | |                 )?
   | |_________________^

error: meta-variable `foo_or_bar` repeats 1 time, but `foo` repeats 0 times
  --> src/main.rs:20:18
   |
20 |                   $(
   |  __________________^
21 | |                     ${ignore($foo_or_bar)}
22 | |                     let i = self.0 + 5;
23 | |                     $(
...  |
30 | |                     )?
31 | |                 )?
   | |_________________^

Is this a current limitation or intended behavior?

[i18nsite]

the resolved

use ignore!

old

can $index support $index for xxx ? for example ${task.index}

[c410-f3r]

#117050 was merged ~2 months ago and no related issues have been created since then.

Can we finally proceed with the stabilization of everything but $$? Does anyone still have any kind of blocking concern?

[c410-f3r]

A stabilization attempt is available at #122808