Question

请考虑以下代码示例（playground）。

#[derive(PartialEq, Clone, Debug)]
enum State {
    Initial,
    One,
    Two,
}

enum Event {
    ButtonOne,
    ButtonTwo,
}

struct StateMachine {
    state: State,
}

impl StateMachine {
    fn new() -> StateMachine {
        StateMachine {
            state: State::Initial,
        }
    }

    fn advance_for_event(&mut self, event: Event) {
        // grab a local copy of the current state
        let start_state = self.state.clone();

        // determine the next state required
        let end_state = match (start_state, event) {
            // starting with initial
            (State::Initial, Event::ButtonOne) => State::One,
            (State::Initial, Event::ButtonTwo) => State::Two,

            // starting with one
            (State::One, Event::ButtonOne) => State::Initial,
            (State::One, Event::ButtonTwo) => State::Two,

            // starting with two
            (State::Two, Event::ButtonOne) => State::One,
            (State::Two, Event::ButtonTwo) => State::Initial,
        };

        self.transition(end_state);
    }

    fn transition(&mut self, end_state: State) {
        // update the state machine
        let start_state = self.state.clone();
        self.state = end_state.clone();

        // handle actions on entry (or exit) of states
        match (start_state, end_state) {
            // transitions out of initial state
            (State::Initial, State::One) => {}
            (State::Initial, State::Two) => {}

            // transitions out of one state
            (State::One, State::Initial) => {}
            (State::One, State::Two) => {}

            // transitions out of two state
            (State::Two, State::Initial) => {}
            (State::Two, State::One) => {}

            // identity states (no transition)
            (ref x, ref y) if x == y => {}

            // ^^^ above branch doesn't match, so this is required
            // _ => {},
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    let mut sm = StateMachine::new();

    sm.advance_for_event(Event::ButtonOne);
    assert_eq!(sm.state, State::One);

    sm.advance_for_event(Event::ButtonOne);
    assert_eq!(sm.state, State::Initial);

    sm.advance_for_event(Event::ButtonTwo);
    assert_eq!(sm.state, State::Two);

    sm.advance_for_event(Event::ButtonTwo);
    assert_eq!(sm.state, State::Initial);
}

在StateMachine::transition方法中，显示的代码无法编译：

error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `(Initial, Initial)` not covered
  --> src/main.rs:52:15
   |
52 |         match (start_state, end_state) {
   |               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ pattern `(Initial, Initial)` not covered

但这正是我要匹配的模式！以及(One, One)边和(Two, Two)边。重要的是，我特别想要这种情况，因为我想利用编译器来确保处理每个可能的状态转换（尤其是稍后添加新状态时），并且我知道身份转换将始终是无操作的。

我可以通过取消注释该行下面的行（_ => {}的注释来解决编译器错误，但是随后我失去了让编译器检查有效转换的优势，因为这将在将来添加的任何状态上都匹配。 / p>

我还可以通过手动键入每个身份转换来解决此问题，例如：

(State::Initial, State::Initial) => {}

那是乏味的，那时我只是在与编译器作斗争。这可能会变成一个宏，所以我可能会做类似的事情：

identity_is_no_op!(State);

或更坏的情况：

identity_is_no_op!(State::Initial, State::One, State::Two);

只要添加了新状态，宏就可以自动编写此样板，但是当我编写的模式应该覆盖我要查找的确切情况时，这感觉就像是不必要的工作。

为什么这不能按原样工作？
做我想做的最干净的方法是什么？

我认为第二种形式的宏（即identity_is_no_op!(State::Initial, State::One, State::Two);）实际上是首选解决方案。

很容易想象一个未来，我确实希望某些州在“不过渡”的情况下做点什么。使用此宏仍将具有在添加新的State时强制重新访问状态机的预期效果，并且如果不需要执行任何操作，仅需要将新状态添加到宏arglist中即可。 IMO的合理妥协。

我认为这个问题仍然有用，因为作为一个相对较新的Rustacean，这种行为令我感到惊讶。

Answer 1

为什么这不能按原样进行？

因为在确定match是否详尽时，Rust编译器无法考虑保护表达式。一旦有了警卫，便会认为警卫可能会失败。

请注意，这与refutable and irrefutable patterns之间的区别无关。 if警卫不是该模式的一部分，而是match语法的一部分。

做我想做的最干净的方法是什么？

列出所有可能的组合。宏可以稍微缩短编写模式的时间，但是您不能使用宏来替换整个match臂。

为什么带有保护子句的匹配模式不完整？

1 个答案: