Tracking issue for ControlFlow enum, for use with try_fold and in Try

[NoraCodes]

(edited to turn this into a tracking issue, as it's referenced by the unstable attributes)

This is a tracking issue for the std::ops::ControlFlow type.
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(control_flow_enum)].

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also uses 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
• Block interconversion with Results
  • Done with Implement the new desugaring from try_trait_v2 #84767
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
  • As part of stabilizing, mention in the docs for Iterator::try_fold and Iterator::try_for_each

Unresolved Questions

• Should we change the generic parameter order? https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76204/files#r481357223 done in change the order of type arguments on ControlFlow #76614
• What methods make sense
  • (probably not the into_try ones, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/76204/files#r481515347) Removed those ones in Demote ControlFlow::{from|into}_try to pub(crate) #85645
• Are the CONTINUE/BREAK constants valuable? See Stabilize ControlFlow::{BREAK, CONTINUE} #102697
  • Removed in Remove ControlFlow::{BREAK, CONTINUE} #107398
• Should it have B = () too? (Might be nice for try_for_each uses.)

Implementation history

Initial PR that added LoopState as an implementation detail: #45595
PR that exposed as unstable and renamed to ControlFlow: #76204
Added BREAK/CONTINUE associated constants: #76318
Changed type parameter order and defaulted C = (): #76614
Add is_break and is_continue methods: #78200

---

I work with an organization that has a large amount of Rust graph traversal code as part of its core business. We used to use itertools's fold_while for short-circuiting functional-style loops over slices of our graphs, which is now deprecated in favor of try_fold.

try_fold is great, but the lack of a standard library provided Try implementation that makes the loop semantics clear is confusing. We created our own, which is fine, but I think it would make a lot of sense to expose LoopState and provide an example in the docs.

Originally related to: rust-itertools/itertools#469

[ecstatic-morse]

Big +1 for this. A Break/Continue enum is also the correct abstraction for the Try trait instead of Result IMO, so I think this is worthy inclusion in the standard library (although in that case a name change would be in order). FWIW, I usually call this enum ControlFlow.

[scottmcm]

As the one who added LoopState initially, I'm not at all tied to that name, so morse's rename sounds good to me -- in fact I've also been calling it ControlFlow in the Try discussions.

@NoraCodes Want to take on making a PR here? There's probably a few parts:

• Renaming from LoopState to ControlFlow
• Making it pub and having appropriate #[unstable] markers on it
• Probably moving it out of core::iter; maybe to core::ops instead?
• Reexporting from std
• Derive a few more things on it now that it's intended to be a real type and not just something internal -- probably at least Clone, Copy, Debug (like morse's example has) in addition to its current PartialEq. (I would personally avoid PartialOrd and Ord for now -- if we stay order-agnostic for now we can change the discriminants later to make interconversion with result as cheap as possible without breaking people.)

Feel free to ping me (here, in a draft PR, on community Discord, or on Zulip) if you have questions.

Its methods are probably imperfect right now, but if it's unstable that's ok. People can start using it on nightly as we'll find out what needs fixing before stabilization that way.

[NoraCodes]

I would be happy to do this. I may ask for some help getting a development environment set up as I have yet to contribute to the core libraries.

[scottmcm]

Congrats on your first core libraries PR, @NoraCodes!

Want to take on the generic parameter reordering (that morse brought up in #76204 (comment)) next?

[NoraCodes]

Thanks @scottmcm! I definitely do want to do that. I'll put in a PR either this weekend or Tuesday.

[scottmcm]

Another example of a type that's pretty close to this: the Transition type in https://deislabs.io/posts/a-fistful-of-states/, which is essentially ControlFlow<Result<()>, Box<dyn State>> -- either execution is done (possibly with an error), or it continues (in the specified state).

[scottmcm]

An MCP to use this more often in the compiler: rust-lang/compiler-team#374

Conveniently that also suggests that ControlFlow<BreakType> would be better than the current ControlFlow<(), BreakType>.

EDIT: A great comment on the PR that implements the MCP (#78182 (comment)):

This PR is awesome (and exposes so many issues of different sublety)

Nice to see confirmation of the value 🙂

[NoraCodes]

Apologies for taking forever on this. I set up a Rust dev env on my new PC and fixed the nits in that PR so we should be good to go. I'll move forward with the other work, and documentation.

[benluelo]

Adding my 2c here - a map_continue(..) combinator (to go with the current map_break(..) one), would be very useful. Should I open a new issue and link it here, or is this suggestion OK in this issue?

[scottmcm]

@benluelo Since map_break exists, I think you could just open a PR to add map_continue under the same tracking issue. Feel free to r? @scottmcm on it.

[ModProg]

I found a usecase where maybe ControlFlow could be used as well, having an early exit from a try_fold for speed up using the same value as the aggregator.

In case this should be in a new issue, let me know.

Something like

impl<T> ControlFlow<T, T> {
    pub fn value(self) -> T {
        match self {
            ControlFlow::Continue(value) | ControlFlow::Break(value) => value,
        }
    }
}

allowing to do

let value = smth.try_fold(Vec::new(), |aggr, curr| {
  // Do something 
  if todo!("Some condition that checks weather aggr is ready for early exit e.g. full") {
    ControlFlow::Break(aggr)
  } else {
    ControlFlow::Continue(aggr)
  }
}).value();

[yoshuawuyts]

I've been wondering about whether we could move some of the shared operations between Option/Result/ControlFlow/Poll to the Try trait. The most obvious one probably being Try::map, but probably methods such as Try::inspect and Try::filter could make sense too.

I realized that ControlFlow doesn't have a singular operation named map; it has both map_continue and map_break. Because ControlFlow maps Try::Output to the value contained in the ControlFlow::Continue, it might be more consistent to rename the map_continue operation to just map. This would match the Result::map / Result::map_err scheme too.

Proposed Method Naming

• ControlFlow::map_continue -> ControlFlow::map
• ControlFlow::map_break -> ControlFlow::map_break (no change)

[schuelermine]

@ModProg I have also run into a case where such a method would be desirable

[LeoniePhiline]

The naming of ControlFlow::break_value and ControlFlow::continue_value is inconsistent with Result::err and Result::break.

Should the two methods be renamed before stabilization?

Proposed Method Naming

Current name	New name	Consistent with
ControlFlow::break_value	ControlFlow::break	Result::err
ControlFlow::continue_value	ControlFlow::continue	Result::ok

[schuelermine]

They cannot have those names because they are strict keywords.

[SmnTin]

Can we stabilize map_break and map_continue?

[scottmcm]

Hello libs-api folks! Inspired by the previous comment, I'm nominating this to get your thoughts on the methods currently tracked by this issue:

impl<B, C> ControlFlow<B, C> {
    pub fn break_value(self) -> Option<B>;
    pub fn map_break<T, F>(self, f: F) -> ControlFlow<T, C>
        where F: FnOnce(B) -> T;
    pub fn continue_value(self) -> Option<C>;
    pub fn map_continue<T, F>(self, f: F) -> ControlFlow<B, T>
        where F: FnOnce(C) -> T;
}

Methods like this were intentionally not part of the RFC that added ControlFlow (https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3058-try-trait-v2.html#methods-on-controlflow) so there hasn't been any previous checkboxes about them.

These are basically like Result::ok and Result::map_err, but because break and continue are keywords, ControlFlow::break doesn't work. It'd need to be ControlFlow::r#break, which I assume we don't want. How do you feel about the break_value and continue_value as the solution to that?

The other naming question from the thread is how to name the map methods, #75744 (comment). I added them as map_break and map_continue, thinking of this type as not prioritizing one side over the other, which personally I think I still like. But map_continue is the try { f(x?) } version, so one could argue it should be named just map like Option::map and Result::map -- though of course there's no Option::map_none so you could also say that that's why the Option one is just map.

[SmnTin]

@scottmcm If we add these methods, unwrap_break and unwrap_continue might also be good additions. Or their utility is not as obvious as Result::unwrap and Result::unwrap_err?

[m-ou-se]

@scottmcm We discussed your comment in the libs-api meeting. We're happy with the current names (with _value). We agree with what you said about map_break and map_continue, to not prioritize one over the other.

[dhedey]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to mention this; but I've just been using ControlFlow for a visitor pattern (well a validator + visitor), and had a couple of notes that I think would be very beneficial to other users, and hopefully easy tweaks:

• I got bitten by the fact ControlFlow is not #[must_use], and I missed a ? to propagate the control flow in one location, and failed to abort / return an error. Could we consider adding this? Must like with result, I think the default expectation is that control flows should be propagated. As a workaround / sanity-check for now, I'm manually adding #[must_use] manually to every method returning a ControlFlow.
• On the interface of the interpreter (which calls the visitor), I wanted to turn the ControlFlow<E, ()> into a Result<(), E> but found it weird that there was no obvious built-in conversion between ControlFlow and Result. Obviously this is a simple match, but it felt like a bit of an omission. Would we consider one of:
  • Methods continue_result which maps Continue to Ok and break_result which maps Break to Ok - I can see some reasonable use cases for both, depending on the algorithm / expectation.
  • Possibly an implementation of impl<C, B> From<ControlFlow<B, C>> for Result<C, B>, if we felt like the more typical conversion is for Continue => Ok.

[NoraCodes]

I would be in favor of a #[must_use] annotation on ControlFlow.

I'm concerned that implementing Into<Result< >> would be confusing, since it wouldn't be obvious or easy to remember whether it was impl<C, B> From<ControlFlow<B, C>> for Result<C, B> or impl<C, B> From<ControlFlow<B, C>> for Result<B, C>. I think the proposed continue_result and break_result is a better idea, perhaps made even clearer if called continue_ok and break_ok.

[dhedey]

Thanks @NoraCodes - and just to add I much prefer the continue_ok and break_ok names you propose!

[scottmcm]

I've put up a stabilization PR for the remaining things tracked under this issue in #130518

@dhedey, can you open a new item for your request so it's more likely to be considered instead of lost? Maybe open an ACP to make the case to the libs-api folks, then if that's approved the attribute addition can be PRed?

[scottmcm]

@ModProg @schuelermine Could one of your open an ACP proposing the into_value (or whatever name) method? It sounds plausible to me, but it should have an ACP in order to add it, and then probably a different tracking issue from the existing things.

(This one's over 4 years old, so I'd like to get it closed out rather than make people expand the history and read a bunch of no-longer-relevant things.)

[dhedey]

Will do, thanks @scottmcm 👍