I’ve been working on a branch that implements both multidispatch (selecting the impl for a trait based on more than one input type) and conditional dispatch (selecting the impl for a trait based on where clauses). I wound up taking a direction that is slightly different from what is described in the trait reform RFC, and I wanted to take a chance to explain what I did and why. The main difference is that in the branch we move away from the crate concatenability property in exchange for better inference and less complexity.

The various kinds of dispatch

The first thing to explain is what the difference is between these various kinds of dispatch.

Single dispatch. Let’s imagine that we have a conversion trait:

trait Convert<Target> {
    fn convert(&self) -> Target;

This trait just has one method. It’s about as simple as it gets. It converts from the (implicit) Self type to the Target type. If we wanted to permit conversion between int and uint, we might implement Convert like so:

impl Convert<uint> for int { ... } // int -> uint
impl Convert<int> for uint { ... } // uint -> uint

Now, in the background here, Rust has this check we call coherence. The idea is (at least as implemented in the master branch at the moment) to guarantee that, for any given Self type, there is at most one impl that applies. In the case of these two impls, that’s satisfied. The first impl has a Self of int, and the second has a Self of uint. So whether we have a Self of int or uint, there is at most one impl we can use (and if we don’t have a Self of int or uint, there are zero impls, that’s fine too).

Multidispatch. Now imagine we wanted to go further and allow int to be converted to some other type MyInt. We might try writing an impl like this:

struct MyInt { i: int }
impl Convert<MyInt> for int { ... } // int -> MyInt

Unfortunately, now we have a problem. If Self is int, we now have two applicable conversions: one to uint and one to MyInt. In a purely single dispatch world, this is a coherence violation.

The idea of multidispatch is to say that it’s ok to have multiple impls with the same Self type as long as at least one of their other type parameters are different. So this second impl is ok, because the Target type parameter is MyInt and not uint.

Conditional dispatch. So far we have dealt only in concrete types like int and MyInt. But sometimes we want to have impls that apply to a category of types. For example, we might want to have a conversion from any type T into a uint, as long as that type supports a MyGet trait:

trait MyGet {
    fn get(&self) -> MyInt;

impl<T> Convert<MyInt> for T
    where T:MyGet
    fn convert(&self) -> MyInt {

We call impls like this, which apply to a broad group of types, blanket impls. So how do blanket impls interact with the coherence rules? In particular, does the conversion from T to MyInt conflict with the impl we saw before that converted from int to MyInt? In my branch, the answer is “only if int implements the MyGet trait”. This seems obvious but turns out to have a surprising amount of subtlety to it.

Crate concatenability and inference

In the trait reform RFC, I mentioned a desire to support crate concatenability, which basically means that you could take two crates (Rust compilation units), concatenate them into one crate, and everything would keep building. It turns out that the coherence rules already basically guarantee this without any further thought – except when it comes to inference. That’s where things get interesting.

To see what I mean, let’s look at a small example. Here we’ll use the same Convert trait as we saw before, but with just the original set of impls that convert between int and uint. Now imagine that I have some code which starts with a int and tries to call convert() on it:

trait Convert<T> { fn convert(&self) -> T; }
impl Convert<uint> for int { ... }
impl Convert<int> for uint { ... }
let x: int = ...;
let y = x.convert();

What can we say about the type of y here? Clearly the user did not specify it and hence the compiler must infer it. If we look at the set of impls, you might think that we can infer that y is of type uint, since the only thing you can convert a int into is a uint. And that is true – at least as far as this particular crate goes.

However, if we consider beyond a single crate, then it is possible that some other crate comes along and adds more impls. For example, perhaps another crate adds the conversion to the MyInt type that we saw before:

struct MyInt { i: int }
impl Convert<MyInt> for int { ... } // int -> MyInt

Now, if we were to concatenate those two crates together, then this type inference step wouldn’t work anymore, because int can now be converted to either uint or MyInt. This means that the snippet of code we saw before would probably require a type annotation to clarify what the user wanted:

let x: int = ...;
let y: uint = x.convert();

Crate concatenation and conditional impls

I just showed that the crate concatenability principle interferes with inference in the case of multidispatch, but that is not necessarily bad. It may not seem so harmful to clarify both the type you are converting from and the type you are converting to, even if there is only one type you could legally choose. Also, multidispatch is fairly rare; most traits has a single type that decides on the impl and then all other types are uniquely determined. Moreover, with the associated types RFC, there is even a syntactic way to express this.

However, when you start trying to implement conditional dispatch that is, dispatch predicated on where clauses, crate concatenability becomes a real problem. To see why, let’s look at a different trait called Push. The purpose of the Push trait is to describe collection types that can be appended to. It has one associated type Elem that describes the element types of the collection:

trait Push {
    type Elem;
    fn push(&mut self, elem: Elem);

We might implement Push for a vector like so:

impl<T> Push for Vec<T> {
    type Elem = T;
    fn push(&mut self, elem: T) { ... }

(This is not how the actual standard library works, since push is an inherent method, but the principles are all the same and I didn’t want to go into inherent methods at the moment.) OK, now imagine I have some code that is trying to construct a vector of char:

let mut v = Vec::new();

The question is, can the compiler resolve the calls to push() here? That is, can it figure out which impl is being invoked? (At least in the current system, we must be able to resolve a method call to a specific impl or type bound at the point of the call – this is a consequence of having type-based dispatch.) Somewhat surprisingly, if we’re strict about crate concatenability, the answer is no.

The reason has to do with DST. The impl for Push that we saw before in fact has an implicit where clause:

impl<T> Push for Vec<T>
    where T : Sized
{ ... }

This implies that some other crate could come along and implement Push for an unsized type:

impl<T> Push for Vec<[T]> { ... }

Now, when we consider a call like v.push('a'), the compiler must pick the impl based solely on the type of the receiver v. At the point of calling push, all we know is that is the type of v is a vector, but we don’t know what it’s a vector of – to infer the element type, we must first resolve the very call to push that we are looking at right now.

Clearly, not being able to call push without specifying the type of elements in the vector is very limiting. There are a couple of ways to resolve this problem. I’m not going to go into detail on these solutions, because they are not what I ultimately opted to do. But briefly:

  • We could introduce some new syntax for distinguishing conditional dispatch vs other where clauses (basically the input/output distinction that we use for type parameters vs associated types). Perhaps a when clause, used to select the impl, versus a where clause, used to indicate conditions that must hold once the impl is selected, but which are not checked beforehand. Hard to understand the difference? Yeah, I know, I know.
  • We could use an ad-hoc rule to distinguish the input/output clauses. For example, all predicates applied to type parameters that are directly used as an input type. Limiting, though, and non-obvious.
  • We could create a much more involved reasoning system (e.g., in this case, Vec::new() in fact yields a vector whose types are known to be sized, but we don’t take this into account when resolving the call to push()). Very complicated, unclear how well it will work and what the surprising edge cases will be.

Or… we could just abandon crate concatenability. But wait, you ask, isn’t it important?

Limits of crate concatenability

So we’ve seen that crate concatenability conflicts with inference and it also interacts negatively with conditional dispatch. I now want to call into question just how valuable it is in the first place. Another way to phrase crate concatenability is to say that it allows you to always add new impls without disturbing existing code using that trait. This is actually a fairly limited guarantee. It is still possible for adding impls to break downstream code across two different traits, for example. Consider the following example:

struct Player { ... }
trait Cowboy {
    // draw your gun!
    fn draw(&self);
impl Cowboy for Player { ...}

struct Polygon { ... }
trait Image {
    // draw yourself (onto a canvas...?)
    fn draw(&self);
impl Image for Polygon { ... }

Here you have two traits with the same method name (draw). However, the first trait is implemented only on Player and the other on Polygon. So the two never actually come into conflict. In particular, if I have a player player and I write player.draw(), it could only be referring to the draw method of the Cowboy trait.

But what happens if I add another impl for Image?

impl Image for Player { ... }

Now suddenly a call to player.draw() is ambiguous, and we need to use so-called “UFCS” notation to disambiguate (e.g., Player::draw(&player)).

(Incidentally, this ability to have type-based dispatch is a great strength of the Rust design, in my opinion. It’s useful to be able to define method names that overlap and where the meaning is determined by the type of the receiver.)

Conclusion: drop crate concatenability

So I’ve been turning these problems over for a while. After some discussions with others, aturon in particular, I feel the best fix is to abandon crate concatenability. This means that the algorithm for picking an impl can be summarized as:

  1. Search the impls in scope and determine those whose types can be unified with the current types in question and hence could possibly apply.
  2. If there is more than one impl in that set, start evaluating where clauses to narrow it down.

This is different from the current master in two ways. First of all, to decide whether an impl is applicable, we use simple unification rather than a one-way match. Basically this means that we allow impl matching to affect inference, so if there is at most one impl that can match the types, it’s ok for the compiler to take that into account. This covers the let y = x.convert() case. Second, we don’t consider the where clauses unless they are needed to remove ambiguity.

I feel pretty good about this design. It is somewhat less pure, in that it blends the role of inputs and outputs in the impl selection process, but it seems very usable. Basically it is guided only by the ambiguities that really exist, not those that could theoretically exist in the future, when selecting types. This avoids forcing the user to classify everything, and in particular avoids the classification of where clauses according to when they are evaluated in the impl selection process. Moreover I don’t believe it introduces any significant compatbility hazards that were not already present in some form or another.