- Feature Name: Formalise Reborrows
- Start Date: 2018-03-19
- RFC PR: rust-lang#2364
- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
Formalise the re-borrowing logic used on &mut T
.
Solve rust-lang#1403:
Some way to simulate &mut
reborrows in user code.
Currently user types including &mut T
fields are not as powerful as real
&mut
types: the latter can be reborrowed, whereas the former can't.
Example uses:
- allow copying of
Option<&mut T>
- applying the compiler's aliasing analysis to other uses where only a single active alias must exist, without requiring an actual reference
- implicit reborrowing with
fn foo<X: T>(x: X)
functions where the traitT
is implemented for&'a X
(or&'a mut X
) types
What is a reborrow? Say we have a function f
taking an argument x
of type
T
. What could that look like?
f(x: &T) |
f(x: T) where T: Copy |
|
---|---|---|
f(y), y: T |
error | move or copy |
f(y), y: &T |
reborrow | deref and copy |
A reborrow is essentially a copy of a pointer with extra lifetime analysis:
in the case of immutable references, the reborrow x: &T
must have shorter
lifetime than the parent y: &T
; in the case of mutable references, there is
an additional restriction: the parent y: &mut T
cannot be used until after
the child x: &mut T
expires.
If, instead of reborrowing a &T
or &mut T
type, you want to reborrow a
derived type, currently, you're out of luck. Well, not quite:
struct MyRef<'a, T: 'a + ?Sized>(&'a T);
fn a(x: MyRef<str>) {
println!("a has: {}", x);
}
fn b(x: MyRef<str>) {
a(MyRef(x.0)); // manual reborrow: reconstruct reference
println!("b called: a({})", x);
}
It would be really nice if in b
, we could just write a(x);
, but if we try
that we get:
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
--> src/main.rs:17:33
|
16 | a(x);
| - value moved here
17 | println!("b called: a({})", x);
| ^ value used here after move
|
= note: move occurs because `x` has type `MyRef<'_, str>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
The compiler is telling us that a(x)
is interpreted as copy x
into a
if
x
supports Copy
, otherwise move x
into a
. Except, as we know, if x
had type &str
instead of MyRef<str>
for both the argument and parameter
type, the compiler would have no problem interpreting this as a reborrow.
A reborrow is not quite a copy due to the requirement for shorter lifetimes.
Full example: https://play.rust-lang.org/?gist=d343ac07c9faf21607a5ad92bbaf5f45&version=stable
We introduce the following trait, as member of std::marker
:
trait Reborrow {
fn reborrow(&self) -> ???;
}
Unfortunately the return type of fn reborrow
isn't representable in general;
the return type must be Self
but with different lifetime(s) (and note that
there will be multiple lifetimes if the type has multiple fields with
lifetimes). It is not possible to use an associated type type Result: ???
because the return type includes a lifetime (or multiple) bound by the caller.
Fortunately it is possible to write specific implementations in Rust today,
for example the above MyRef
type can be given a reborrow implementation:
impl<'a, T: 'a + ?Sized> Reborrow for MyRef<'a, T> {
fn reborrow<'b>(&self) -> MyRef<'b, T> where 'a: 'b {
MyRef(self.0)
}
}
The &T
and &mut T
types already support reborrowing semantics; this
formalisation requires that both support the Reborrow
trait.
In theory, it should be possible to manually implement Reborrow
with code
similar to the above; I do not know if this is possible due to the improper
definition of the return type.
Rust should have built-in support for deriving the Reborrow
trait. The
derived implementation should copy any fields supporting Copy
and reborrow
any fields supporting Reborrow
; if neither is possible for any field then the
trait cannot be derived.
Anonymous types should have this trait automatically derived as is the case for
Copy
today; e.g. (u32, &i32)
should support Reborrow
.
Today, reborrowing happens automatically for references, as in the f(y)
example from the table above. We formalise this:
When a parameter x
is passed into a function f
(e.g. f(x)
),
- if
x
supportsCopy
, then a copy ofx
will be passed intof
- if
x
supportsReborrow
, then a reborrow ofx
will be passed intof
- otherwise,
x
will be moved intof
[or usage is an error]
We also allow the optimiser to replace a reborrow with a move.
Implicit usage does not imply that explicit usage is impossible. It is proposed
that calling reborrow
directly is possible, so long as the trait is in scope:
use std::marker::reborrow;
let x = 1;
let y = &mut x;
let z = y.reborrow();
This RFC introduces a trait which cannot be defined in stable Rust today. This is a challenge which would require significant syntax extensions to fix, and may never be resolved.
Arguably the Reborrow
trait should be called Reborrowable
, but that
name is unwieldy, and besides, Copy
and Clone
have verb rather than
adjective names.
Possibly Reborrow
should have its own sub-module of std
, as Clone
does.
Alternatively, the concept of reborrowing could remain entirely implicit, as it is today but with automatic implementation for derived types as above.
Given that we have significant motivation for solving this problem and that the compiler already has reborrowing logic, re-using that logic as much as possible is desirable. This RFC merely seeks to formalise the existing concepts, apply them to a slightly broader probem, and document this.
I will also say that formal documentation of the reborrowing logic is a strong secondary goal of this RFC; without documentation or notation to describe the reborrow logic I have found it a confusing concept; with notation and documentation it is a much more approachable concept.
See rust-lang#1403. No known prior to this RFC exists.
How to define the return type of Reborrow::reborrow
.