First-class place expressions

Crazy thought: what if we had first-class place expressions in the language?

&(mut) currently enjoys a very special status. You can turn &struct into &struct.field, which is a map &'a Struct -> &'a Field, but it is impossible to express that map in the language. If we wanted to make it a function, what would it even act on? Similarly, it's impossible to express its basic constructor t -> &t as a function T -> &'a T. It doesn't act on a value, it acts on a place expression.

This built-in magic behaviour is desirable for other smart pointers, but currently cannot be ergonomically and safely expressed in the language.

What if there was some opaque compiler-provided place expression object, which could be passed around in user code? A place expression to an object of type T could implement some trait Place<T>.

In its object form dyn Place<T> it would basically be represented as a pointer *mut T, with the distinction that we would know that it's in "dereferenced" form. In other words, place: *const dyn Place<T> is just *const T with the known type T and no dyn metadata (similarly, place: *mut dyn Place<T> is just *mut T).

In the compile-time generic parameter form fn foo<P: Place<T>>(place: P, ..) the place would carry compiler-provided metadata, which would allow a richer API. A place would know its provenance, so that we could check that e.g. field_place is really a place to a field in struct_place. Perhaps it should be possible to go from a field place to its parent struct place. This would allow to avoid dealing with explicit offsets of fields in structs in order to perform that operation.

A smart pointer type, e.g. Ref<Struct>, would be able to provide the place of its contained data, i.e. a mapping impl Place<Ref<Struct>> -> impl Place<Struct> (it would basically just return the dereferenced inner pointer, as a place). Given s: Place<Struct>, we can get s.f: Place<Field>, which can be passed into

Ref::restrict(self: impl Place<Ref<Struct>>, field: impl Place<Field>) -> impl Place<Ref<Field>>

The instance of Ref can be recovered by converting place expression into a value expression, as usual. But if so desired, you could convert &Ref<Struct> into &Ref<Field> with the same function and a referencing.

Since the compiler has full information about both places, it can check that field is really a place in the inner struct and not just some stray pointer. This means that the restriction function can be entirely safe. With a pointer-based or offset-based definition of restrict, I just don't see a way to make a safe API.

Composability becomes easy. To turn Ref<MaybeUninit<Struct>> into Ref<MaybeUninit<Field>>, we first extract the place of the field via

Place<Ref<MaybeUninit<Struct>>> -> Place<MaybeUninit<Struct>> -> Place<Struct> -> Place<Field>

We get the required instance of Ref<MaybeUninit<Field>> by spinning that process in reverse with restrict functions, i.e.

MaybeUninit::restrict(impl Place<MaybeUninit<Struct>>, impl Place<Field>) -> impl Place<MaybeUninit<Field>>

Ref::restrict(impl Place<Ref<MaybeUninit<Struct>>>, impl Place<MaybeUninit<Field>>) -> impl Place<Ref<MaybeUninit<Field>>>

The last line is valid since we track the place provenance, and so we know that the given field: Place<MaybeUninit<Field>> is really a place within struct: Place<MaybeUninit<Struct>>. Also note that you can't turn impl Place<Struct> into e.g. RefMut<Struct>, since RefMut doesn't provide a corresponding constructor, and the RefMut::restrict method requires already having a valid RefMut to restrict.

First-class place expressions would also be able to solve many (most? all?) cases of proliferation of get/get_mut or iter/iter_mut methods, which really don't care about the mutability, and can be essentially generated by a macro. With first-class place expression, we would have a function

fn get_place(self: impl Place<[T]>, n: usize) -> impl Place<T>

which computes the resulting place directly operating on the places of the slice (currently all operations differ only in pervasive const/mut dichotomy). Similarly, we would have

fn iter_place(self: impl Place<[T]>) -> impl Iterator<Item=impl Place<T>>

and the end-user would choose the desired value iterator by applying the corresponding smart pointer constructor. It could be &T or &mut T iterators as usual, but also *const T, Option<&T> or even &MaybeUninit<T>, if some unsafe trickery requires it.


A very interesting proposal, here are some of the things that I noticed:

  • What would be the use case for *const dyn Place<T>?
  • Does Box<dyn Place<T>> make sense? If yes, then we can get &dyn Place<dyn Place<T>>, this seems weird?
  • What can I do in fn foo(p: impl Place<T>)? Is it equivalent to fn foo(p: T)?

This should be a new operator, because it would be a rather common occurrence. I will use ~ in this thread (e.g. let _: &dyn Place<T> = &~Box::new(t)).

I do not like that this is not represented in the function signature/types. "It will cause a compile error when field is not a field of self" only in the docs seems like a bad idea, when writing docs is not a requirement [1].

Here you describe that it is possible to Place<MaybeUninit<T>> -> Place<T>, but that seems to be unsound, becaues I could do:

let data: MaybeUninit<Foo> = MaybeUninit::uninit();
let inner: &dyn Place<Foo> = &~data;
println!("{:?}", inner);

  1. I do not know how one would encode this, maybe a a trait bound Field: ContainedBy<Struct>? ↩︎

I think this reflects that the second Place actually ought to be a different trait. It's not a place, but mapping from one kind of place to another.

Maybe trait MapPlace<Source, Dest>?

Then MaybeUninit::restrict would become

MaybeUninit::restrict(impl Place<MaybeUninit<Struct>>, impl MapPlace<Struct, Field>) -> impl Place<MaybeUninit<Field>>

Continuing with ~ as our operator we could have ~.field mean "a field on an inferred type and ~Struct.field mean a field on type Struct

Then you could call restrict like

let value = MaybeUninit::<Struct>::uninit();

// Source is inferred in this map.
let field: &MaybeUninit<Field> = &MaybeUninit::restrict(~value, ~.field); 
// Source is explicitly Struct.
let field: &MaybeUninit<Field> = &MaybeUninit::restrict(~value, ~Struct.field); 

You might be able to get away with a closure instead of a new trait too? I'm not sure.

1 Like

This is a very interesting idea, but it needs fleshing out. One thing that immediately caught my eye is that Place<T> does not specify whether it owns T, borrows it mutably or immutably. That might not be a problem since it is a trait and could abstract over these "modes". So there could be different structs MutableRefPlace<'a, T>, SharedRefPlace<'a, T> and OwnedPlace<T> that all implement Place<T>. What bugs me is that you haven't shown what the trait looks like, and you also didn't provide the implementation of get_place and iter_place, which makes me doubtful that they can be implemented safely.

Note that the get_place method returns a Place<T> instance with no bounds, so it could return an OwnedPlace<T> when only a SharedRefPlace<'a, T> was provided:

If you had something very different in mind, I'd appreciate if you could explain it in more detail.


I think Herb Sutter's draft proposal for adding in/inout/out parameters to C++ seems relevant here: it's an attempt to abstract the C++ parameter passing into a bit more of a type-state approach where it knows a parameter must be assigned to, or can be passed in as either by value or reference at the compilers discretion

Here it seems like you would want to have a similar sort of definite assignment(/moved from) analysis, which implies these types shouldn't cross function boundaries (but what do I know)

Otherwise this just seems like the C++ reference type: which while handy there doesn't seem like it would work well in Rust, since it's essentially an invisible borrow.


Note this is also the feature being discussed as needed for Simple postfix macros by joshtriplett · Pull Request #2442 · rust-lang/rfcs · GitHub -- it wants to be able to capture something as a place if it's a place, including putting the result of an expression into a temporary place if needed, in order to be able to call methods on it naturally.

This could also be useful for fields in traits: a field in a trait could just be a const trait method that returns a place.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.