Non-Identifier Identifiers

There are two tokens which you are likely to run into eventually that look like identifiers, but aren't. Except when they are.

First is self. This is very definitely a keyword. However, it also happens to fit the definition of an identifier. In regular Rust code, there's no way for self to be interpreted as an identifier, but it can happen with macros:

macro_rules! what_is {
    (self) => {"the keyword `self`"};
    ($i:ident) => {concat!("the identifier `", stringify!($i), "`")};
}

macro_rules! call_with_ident {
    ($c:ident($i:ident)) => {$c!($i)};
}

fn main() {
    println!("{}", what_is!(self));
    println!("{}", call_with_ident!(what_is(self)));
}

The above outputs:

the keyword `self`
the keyword `self`

But that makes no sense; call_with_ident! required an identifier, matched one, and substituted it! So self is both a keyword and not a keyword at the same time. You might wonder how this is in any way important. Take this example:

macro_rules! make_mutable {
    ($i:ident) => {let mut $i = $i;};
}

struct Dummy(i32);

impl Dummy {
    fn double(self) -> Dummy {
        make_mutable!(self);
        self.0 *= 2;
        self
    }
}
# 
# fn main() {
#     println!("{:?}", Dummy(4).double().0);
# }

This fails to compile with:

<anon>:2:28: 2:30 error: expected identifier, found keyword `self`
<anon>:2     ($i:ident) => {let mut $i = $i;};
                                    ^~

So the macro will happily match self as an identifier, allowing you to use it in cases where you can't actually use it. But, fine; it somehow remembers that self is a keyword even when it's an identifier, so you should be able to do this, right?

macro_rules! make_self_mutable {
    ($i:ident) => {let mut $i = self;};
}

struct Dummy(i32);

impl Dummy {
    fn double(self) -> Dummy {
        make_self_mutable!(mut_self);
        mut_self.0 *= 2;
        mut_self
    }
}
# 
# fn main() {
#     println!("{:?}", Dummy(4).double().0);
# }

This fails with:

<anon>:2:33: 2:37 error: `self` is not available in a static method. Maybe a `self` argument is missing? [E0424]
<anon>:2     ($i:ident) => {let mut $i = self;};
                                         ^~~~

That doesn't make any sense, either. It's not in a static method. It's almost like it's complaining that the self it's trying to use isn't the same self... as though the self keyword has hygiene, like an... identifier.

macro_rules! double_method {
    ($body:expr) => {
        fn double(mut self) -> Dummy {
            $body
        }
    };
}

struct Dummy(i32);

impl Dummy {
    double_method! {{
        self.0 *= 2;
        self
    }}
}
# 
# fn main() {
#     println!("{:?}", Dummy(4).double().0);
# }

Same error. What about...

macro_rules! double_method {
    ($self_:ident, $body:expr) => {
        fn double(mut $self_) -> Dummy {
            $body
        }
    };
}

struct Dummy(i32);

impl Dummy {
    double_method! {self, {
        self.0 *= 2;
        self
    }}
}

fn main() {
    println!("{:?}", Dummy(4).double().0);
}

At last, this works. So self is both a keyword and an identifier when it feels like it. Surely this works for other, similar constructs, right?

macro_rules! double_method {
    ($self_:ident, $body:expr) => {
        fn double($self_) -> Dummy {
            $body
        }
    };
}

struct Dummy(i32);

impl Dummy {
    double_method! {_, 0}
}
# 
# fn main() {
#     println!("{:?}", Dummy(4).double().0);
# }

<anon>:12:21: 12:22 error: expected ident, found _
<anon>:12     double_method! {_, 0}
                              ^

No, of course not. _ is a keyword that is valid in patterns and expressions, but somehow isn't an identifier like the keyword self is, despite matching the definition of an identifier just the same.

You might think you can get around this by using $self_:pat instead; that way, _ will match! Except, no, because self isn't a pattern. Joy.

The only work around for this (in cases where you want to accept some combination of these tokens) is to use a tt matcher instead.