I'm using binary trees to create a simple computation graph. I understand that linked lists are a pain in Rust, but it's a very convenient data structure for what I'm doing. I tried using Box and Rc<RefCell> for the children nodes, but it didn't work out how I wanted, so I used unsafe:
use std::ops::{Add, Mul};
#[derive(Debug, Copy, Clone)]
struct MyStruct {
value: i32,
lchild: Option<*mut MyStruct>,
rchild: Option<*mut MyStruct>,
}
impl MyStruct {
unsafe fn print_tree(&mut self, set_to_zero: bool) {
if set_to_zero {
self.value = 0;
}
println!("{:?}", self);
let mut nodes = vec![self.lchild, self.rchild];
while nodes.len() > 0 {
let child;
match nodes.pop() {
Some(popped_child) => child = popped_child.unwrap(),
None => continue,
}
if set_to_zero {
(*child).value = 0;
}
println!("{:?}", *child);
if !(*child).lchild.is_none() {
nodes.push((*child).lchild);
}
if !(*child).rchild.is_none() {
nodes.push((*child).rchild);
}
}
println!("");
}
}
impl Add for MyStruct {
type Output = Self;
fn add(self, other: Self) -> MyStruct {
MyStruct{
value: self.value + other.value,
lchild: Some(&self as *const _ as *mut _),
rchild: Some(&other as *const _ as *mut _),
}
}
}
impl Mul for MyStruct {
type Output = Self;
fn mul(self, other: Self) -> Self {
MyStruct{
value: self.value * other.value,
lchild: Some(&self as *const _ as *mut _),
rchild: Some(&other as *const _ as *mut _),
}
}
}
fn main() {
let mut tree: MyStruct;
{
let a = MyStruct{ value: 10, lchild: None, rchild: None };
let b = MyStruct{ value: 20, lchild: None, rchild: None };
let c = a + b;
println!("c.value: {}", c.value); // 30
let mut d = a + b;
println!("d.value: {}", d.value); // 30
d.value = 40;
println!("d.value: {}", d.value); // 40
let mut e = c * d;
println!("e.value: {}", e.value); // 1200
unsafe {
e.print_tree(false); // correct values
e.print_tree(true); // all zeros
e.print_tree(false); // all zeros, everything is set correctly
}
tree = e;
}
unsafe { tree.print_tree(false); } // same here, only zeros
}
I honestly don't mind that much using unsafe, but is there a safe way doing it? How bad is the use of unsafe here?
You can just box both of the children, since you have a unidirectional tree:
use std::ops::{Add, Mul};
use std::fmt;
#[derive(Clone)]
struct MyStruct {
value: i32,
lchild: Option<Box<MyStruct>>,
rchild: Option<Box<MyStruct>>,
}
impl fmt::Debug for MyStruct {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> Result<(), fmt::Error> {
f.debug_struct("MyStruct")
.field("value", &self.value)
.field("lchild", &self.lchild.as_deref())
.field("rchild", &self.rchild.as_deref())
.finish()
}
}
impl MyStruct {
fn print_tree(&mut self, set_to_zero: bool) {
if set_to_zero {
self.value = 0;
}
println!("MyStruct {{ value: {:?}, lchild: {:?}, rchild: {:?} }}", self.value, &self.lchild as *const _, &self.rchild as *const _);
if let Some(child) = &mut self.lchild {
child.print_tree(set_to_zero);
}
if let Some(child) = &mut self.rchild {
child.print_tree(set_to_zero);
}
}
}
impl Add for MyStruct {
type Output = Self;
fn add(self, other: Self) -> MyStruct {
MyStruct {
value: self.value + other.value,
lchild: Some(Box::new(self)),
rchild: Some(Box::new(other)),
}
}
}
impl Mul for MyStruct {
type Output = Self;
fn mul(self, other: Self) -> Self {
MyStruct {
value: self.value * other.value,
lchild: Some(Box::new(self)),
rchild: Some(Box::new(other)),
}
}
}
fn main() {
let tree = {
let a = MyStruct {
value: 10,
lchild: None,
rchild: None,
};
let b = MyStruct {
value: 20,
lchild: None,
rchild: None,
};
let c = a.clone() + b.clone();
println!("c.value: {}", c.value); // 30
let mut d = a.clone() + b.clone();
println!("d.value: {}", d.value); // 30
d.value = 40;
println!("d.value: {}", d.value); // 40
let mut e = c * d;
println!("e.value: {}", e.value); // 1200
println!("");
e.print_tree(false); // correct values
println!("");
e.print_tree(true); // all zeros
println!("");
e.print_tree(false); // all zeros, everything is set correctly
println!("");
e
};
dbg!(tree);
}
I implemented Debug manually and reimplemented print_tree recursively. I don't know if there is a way to implement print_tree as mutable like that without recursion, but it's certainly possible if you take &self instead (removing the set_to_zero stuff).
Edit: Turns out it is possible to mutably iterate over the tree values without recursion. The following code is derived from the playground in this comment by @Shepmaster.
impl MyStruct {
fn zero_tree(&mut self) {
let mut node_stack = vec![self];
let mut value_stack = vec![];
// collect mutable references to each value
while let Some(MyStruct { value, lchild, rchild }) = node_stack.pop() {
value_stack.push(value);
if let Some(child) = lchild {
node_stack.push(child);
}
if let Some(child) = rchild {
node_stack.push(child);
}
}
// iterate over mutable references to values
for value in value_stack {
*value = 0;
}
}
}