Distinguish static member function on shared structs

[XiangpengHao]

Regard #437, what's your opinion on how to distinguish static member function from non-static ones?
For example:

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    extern "Rust" {
        fn foo(self: &A) -> A; 
        fn bar(self: &A) -> A;
    }
}

impl ffi::A {
    fn foo() -> A {
        A { a: 0 }
    }

    fn bar(&self) -> A {
        A { a: self.a }
    }
}

In the generated header file, foo should be a static function while bar should be non-static.

[dtolnay]

A Rust signature should be emitted as a non-static member function if and only if it has a self argument. I want to support static member functions but those shouldn't be written with a self argument.

Maybe like this? :

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    extern "Rust" {
        #[Self = "A"]
        fn foo() -> A; 
        fn bar(self: &A) -> A;
    }
}

[XiangpengHao]

I'm also thinking about this:

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    extern "Rust" {
        #[struct = "A"]
        fn foo() -> A; 

        #[struct = "A"]
        fn bar(&self) -> A;
    }
}

1. struct sounds more intuitive than Self
2. attribute on bar is also madantary, just to be explict and have a uniform api
3. having (2), we can define bar(&self) so the function signature is consistent with rust conventions.

This will break existing code though.

[mikhailzagurskiy]

I suggest using another approach - using nested modules to declare static member functions:

struct SimpleClass {
    static void simpleMethod();
}

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {

    pub mod SimpleClass {
        extern "C++" {
            fn simpleMethod();
        }
    }
}

fn main() {
    SimpleClass::simpleMethod();
}

I think, it was really what we want for static member functions

[dtolnay]

I am on board with that!

[jsgf]

My first instinct was to try:

#[cxx_name = "SimpleClass::simpleMethod"]
fn simplething();

but this fails with

 1 │         #[cxx_name = "SimpleClass::simpleMethod"]
   │                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ unexpected token

Is there some semantic distinction between a static method and a plain function that we need to maintain? If it's just a matter of names then it seems like cxx_name is a straightforward way to express that.

[sbrocket]

@dtolnay I'm interested in contributing support for static member functions. There's a few different design possibilities that have been discussed, summarized below. I'd like to agree on one with you and then I'll work on putting together a pull request.

1. Designate static member functions with a new attribute

This was the first option you mentioned above.

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    extern "Rust" {
        #[Self = "A"]
        fn static_member_of_A() -> A; 
    }
}

I think we'd want to support this attribute applied to the extern block too, similar to #[namespace], for brevity when declaring multiple static member functions.

We can bikeshed the name of the attribute - Self, struct or class, or maybe static - if we choose this one. IMO this is the clearest of these options because we can choose the name of the attribute to clearly relate to static methods.

2. Group static member functions in a nested module

This option was proposed by @mikhailzagurskiy above.

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    mod A {
        extern "C++" {
            fn static_member_of_A() -> A; 
        }
    }
}

It's not clear to me whether they intended this syntax to only support classes that only contain static member functions - which seems too limited to be useful - or not. As it is, this syntax feels weird to me because it looks like you'd have an identifier conflict between the type and module.

3. Group static member functions in an impl block

A spin on Option 2 would be to use an impl block instead of a module. I think this is a bit clearer, but it still has the downside that there's little relation between the standard meaning of this syntax vs. its meaning to the #[cxx::bridge] macro; it's still an impl block containing declarations, not implementations. This also doesn't seem very self-explanatory...without a well-placed comment or digging through cxx docs, I don't think a reader would ever intuit that the impl block makes this a static method.

#[cxx::bridge]
mod ffi {
    struct A {
        a: f32,
    }

    impl A {
        extern "Rust" {
            fn static_member_of_A() -> A; 
        }
    }
}

[Nikita240]

Are there any workarounds for this at the moment? I can't figure out how to expose a constructor from Rust to C++ without wrapping it with a non-associated function.