adhoc_derive  

Experimental: Derive FromStr impl based on regex provided via attribute

Usage

Add the following in your Cargo.toml:

[dependencies]
adhoc_derive = "0.1.2"
lazy_static = "1.2.0"
regex = "1.1.0"

Then, you can derive a std::str::FromStr impl as follows:

use adhoc_derive::FromStr;

#[derive(FromStr)]
#[adhoc(regex = r"^#(?P<id>\d+) @ (?P<x>\d+),(?P<y>\d+): (?P<width>\d+)x(?P<height>\d+)$")]
struct Rectangle {
    id: usize,
    x: usize,
    y: usize,
    width: usize,
    height: usize,
}

let rect: Rectangle = "#123 @ 3,2: 5x4".parse().unwrap();
assert_eq!(123, rect.id);
assert_eq!(3, rect.x);
assert_eq!(2, rect.y);
assert_eq!(5, rect.width);
assert_eq!(4, rect.height);

In general, each field of the struct needs to implement std::str::FromStr and each field identifier needs to correspond to a named capture group in the regex.

For enums, you need to annotate each variant with a regex. The first regex that matches (usually the only one) determines which variant is instantiated:

#[derive(Debug, PartialEq, FromStr)]
enum Expression {
    #[adhoc(regex = r"^$")]
    Empty,
    #[adhoc(regex = r"^(?P<0>\d+)$")]
    Number(i32),
    #[adhoc(regex = r"^(?P<a>\d+)\+(?P<b>\d+)$")]
    Sum(#[adhoc(construct_with = "a: i32 + b: i32")] i32),
    #[adhoc(regex = r"^(?P<a>\d+)-(?P<b>\d+)$")]
    Difference(#[adhoc(construct_with = "a: i32 - b: i32")] i32),
}

let empty: Expression = "".parse().unwrap();
assert_eq!(Expression::Empty, empty);

let number: Expression = "4".parse().unwrap();
assert_eq!(Expression::Number(4), number);

let sum: Expression = "8+15".parse().unwrap();
assert_eq!(Expression::Sum(23), sum);

let difference: Expression = "16-23".parse().unwrap();
assert_eq!(Expression::Difference(-7), difference);

For a more comprehensive guide, refer to GUIDE.md

Limitations

This crate is experimental and has a lot of rough edges. In no particular order:

• Doesn't work with generic structs out of the box (it should work if you add the required trait bounds yourself)
• Not yet implemented: optional patterns, i.e. (...)? => Option<...>
• Not yet implemented: repeating patterns, i.e. (...)* => Vec<...>
• Error handling and especially reporting is basically non-existent
• Provided regex is not validated at compile-time