fmt::Debug hardly looks compact and clean, so it is often advantageous to customize the output appearance. This is done by manually implementing fmt::Display, which uses the {} print marker. Implementing it looks like this:

#![allow(unused_variables)]
fn main() {
// Import (via `use`) the `fmt` module to make it available.
use std::fmt;

// Define a structure which `fmt::Display` will be implemented for. This is simply
// a tuple struct containing an `i32` bound to the name `Structure`.
struct Structure(i32);

// In order to use the `{}` marker, the trait `fmt::Display` must be implemented
// manually for the type.
impl fmt::Display for Structure {
    // This trait requires `fmt` with this exact signature.
    fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
        // Write strictly the first element into the supplied output
        // stream: `f`. Returns `fmt::Result` which indicates whether the
        // operation succeeded or failed. Note that `write!` uses syntax which
        // is very similar to `println!`.
        write!(f, "{}", self.0)
    }
}
}

fmt::Display may be cleaner than fmt::Debug but this presents a problem for the std library. How should ambiguous types be displayed? For example, if the std library implemented a single style for all Vec<T>, what style should it be? Either of these two?

• Vec<path>: /:/etc:/home/username:/bin (split on :)
• Vec<number>: 1,2,3 (split on ,)

No, because there is no ideal style for all types and the std library doesn't presume to dictate one. fmt::Display is not implemented for Vec<T> or for any other generic containers. fmt::Debug must then be used for these generic cases.

This is not a problem though because for any new container type which is not generic,fmt::Display can be implemented.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

So, fmt::Display has been implemented but fmt::Binary has not, and therefore cannot be used. std::fmt has many such traits and each requires its own implementation. This is detailed further in std::fmt.

After checking the output of the above example, use the Point2D struct as guide to add a Complex struct to the example. When printed in the same way, the output should be:

Display: 3.3 +7.2i
Debug: Complex { real: 3.3, imag: 7.2 }

derive, std::fmt, macros, struct, trait, and use