You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Rollup merge of rust-lang#144330 - gewitternacht:document-clone-eq, r=Amanieu
document assumptions about `Clone` and `Eq` traits
Most standard library collections break if `Clone` has a non-standard implementation which violates `x.clone() == x`. [Here](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=b7fc6dfa8410cbb673eb8d38393d81de) the resulting broken behaviour of different collections is shown. I originally created an issue at rust-lang/hashbrown#629, but the conclusion there was that `x.clone()` resulting in an object that compares equal to the original one is probably a very universal assumption. However, this assumption is (to my knowledge) not documented anywhere.
I propose to make this assumption explicit in the `Clone` trait documentation. The property that seems the most reasonable to me is the following: When implementing both `Clone` and `PartialEq`, then
```text
x == x -> x.clone() == x
```
is expected to hold. This way, when also implementing `Eq`, it automatically follows that `x.clone() == x` has to hold, which should be enough for the collections to not break. At the same time, the property also works for the "normal" elements of a type with `PartialEq`. For the wording, I tried to follow the [`Hash` and `Eq`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/hash/trait.Hash.html#hash-and-eq) documentation.
As I am fairly new to Rust, it might well be that this property cannot be generally expected – it seems reasonable to me, but any counter-examples or critique, both content- and wording-wise, would be very welcome. If the property turns out to be too general, I would suggest to at least document the assumption of `x.clone() == x` for the collections somehow.
An additional thought of mine:
If it is indeed generally expected that `x == x -> x.clone() == x`, then, for the sake of completeness, one could also define that `x != x -> y != y for y = x.clone()` should hold, i.e., that an object that did not compare equal to itself before cloning, should also not compare equal to itself afterwards.
0 commit comments