Initial commit

active/0000-closures.md

@@ -0,0 +1,386 @@
+- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
+- RFC PR #: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue #: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+- Convert function call `a(b, ..., z)` into an overloadable operator
+  via the traits `Fn<A,R>`, `FnShare<A,R>`, and `FnOnce<A,R>`, where `A`
+  is a tuple `(B, ..., Z)` of the types `B...Z` of the arguments
+  `b...z`, and `R` is the return type. The three traits differ in
+  their self argument (`&mut self` vs `&self` vs `self`).
+- Remove the `proc` expression form and type.
+- Remove the closure types (though the form lives on as syntactic
+  sugar, see below).
+- Modify closure expressions to permit specifying by-reference vs
+  by-value capture and the receiver type:
+  - Specifying by-reference vs by-value closures:
+    - `ref |...| expr` indicates a closure that captures upvars from the
+      environment by reference. This is what closures do today and the
+      behavior will remain unchanged, other than requiring an explicit
+      keyword.
+    - `|...| expr` will therefore indicate a closure that captures upvars
+      from the environment by value. As usual, this is either a copy or
+      move depending on whether the type of the upvar implements `Copy`.
+  - Specifying receiver mode (orthogonal to capture mode above):
+    - `|a, b, c| expr` is equivalent to `|&mut: a, b, c| expr`
+    - `|&mut: ...| expr` indicates that the closure implements `Fn`
+    - `|&: ...| expr` indicates that the closure implements `FnShare`
+    - `|: a, b, c| expr` indicates that the closure implements `FnOnce`.
+- Add syntactic sugar where `|T1, T2| -> R1` is translated to
+  a reference to one of the fn traits as follows:
+  - `|T1, ..., Tn| -> R` is translated to `Fn<(T1, ..., Tn), R>`
+  - `|&mut: T1, ..., Tn| -> R` is translated to `Fn<(T1, ..., Tn), R>`
+  - `|&: T1, ..., Tn| -> R` is translated to `FnShare<(T1, ..., Tn), R>`
+  - `|: T1, ..., Tn| -> R` is translated to `FnOnce<(T1, ..., Tn), R>`
+
+One aspect of closures that this RFC does *not* describe is that we
+must permit trait references to be universally quantified over regions
+as closures are today. A description of this change is described below
+under *Unresolved questions* and the details will come in a
+forthcoming RFC.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Over time we have observed a very large number of possible use cases
+for closures. The goal of this RFC is to create a unified closure
+model that encompasses all of these use cases.
+
+Specific goals (explained in more detail below):
+
+1. Give control over inlining to users.
+2. Support closures that bind by reference and closures that bind by value.
+3. Support different means of accessing the closure environment,
+   corresponding to `self`, `&self`, and `&mut self` methods.
+
+As a side benefit, though not a direct goal, the RFC reduces the
+size/complexity of the language's core type system by unifying
+closures and traits.
+
+## The core idea: unifying closures and traits
+
+The core idea of the RFC is to unify closures, procs, and
+traits. There are a number of reasons to do this. First, it simplifies
+the language, because closures, procs, and traits already served
+similar roles and there was sometimes a lack of clarity about which
+would be the appropriate choice. However, in addition, the unification
+offers increased expressiveness and power, because traits are a more
+generic model that gives users more control over optimization.
+
+The basic idea is that function calls become an overridable operator.
+Therefore, an expression like `a(...)` will be desugar into an
+invocation of one of the following traits:
+
+    trait Fn<A,R> {
+        fn call(&mut self, args: A) -> R;
+    }
+
+    trait FnShare<A,R> {
+        fn call(&self, args: A) -> R;
+    }
+
+    trait FnOnce<A,R> {
+        fn call(&self, args: A) -> R;
+    }
+
+Essentially, `a(b, c, d)` becomes sugar for one of the following:
+
+    Fn::call(&mut a, (b, c, d))
+    FnShare::call(&a, (b, c, d))
+    FnOnce::call(a, (b, c, d))
+
+To integrate with this, closure expressions are then translated into a
+fresh struct that implements one of those three traits. The precise
+trait is currently indicated using explicit syntax but may eventually
+be inferred.
+
+This change gives user control over virtual vs static dispatch.  This
+works in the same way as generic types today:
+
+    fn foo(x: &mut Fn<int,int>) -> int {
+        x(2) // virtual dispatch
+    }
+
+    fn foo<F:Fn<int,int>>(x: &mut F) -> int {
+        x(2) // static dispatch
+    }
+
+The change also permits returning closures, which is not currently
+possible (the example relies on the proposed `impl` syntax from
+rust-lang/rfcs#105):
+
+    fn foo(x: impl Fn<int,int>) -> impl Fn<int,int> {
+        |v| x(v * 2)
+    }
+
+Basically, in this design there is nothing special about a closure.
+Closure expressions are simply a convenient way to generate a struct
+that implements a suitable `Fn` trait.
+
+## Bind by reference vs bind by value
+
+When creating a closure, it is now possible to specify whether the
+closure should capture variables from its environment ("upvars") by
+reference or by value. The distinction is indicated using the leading
+keyword `ref`:
+
+    || foo(a, b)      // captures `a` and `b` by value
+
+    ref || foo(a, b)  // captures `a` and `b` by reference, as today
+
+### Reasons to bind by value
+
+Bind by value is useful when creating closures that will escape from
+the stack frame that created them, such as task bodies (`spawn(||
+...)`) or combinators. It is also useful for moving values out of a
+closure, though it should be possible to enable that with bind by
+reference as well in the future.
+
+### Reasons to bind by reference
+
+Bind by reference is useful for any case where the closure is known
+not to escape the creating stack frame. This frequently occurs
+when using closures to encapsulate common control-flow patterns:
+
+    map.insert_or_update_with(key, value, || ...)
+    opt_val.unwrap_or_else(|| ...)
+
+In such cases, the closure frequently wishes to read or modify local
+variables on the enclosing stack frame. Generally speaking, then, such
+closures should capture variables by-reference -- that is, they should
+store a reference to the variable in the creating stack frame, rather
+than copying the value out. Using a reference allows the closure to
+mutate the variables in place and also avoids moving values that are
+simply read temporarily.
+
+The vast majority of closures in use today are should be "by
+reference" closures. The only exceptions are those closures that wish
+to "move out" from an upvar (where we commonly use the so-called
+"option dance" today). In fact, even those closures could be "by
+reference" closures, but we will have to extend the inference to
+selectively identify those variables that must be moved and take those
+"by value".
+
+# Detailed design
+
+## Closure expression syntax
+
+Closure expressions will have the following form (using EBNF notation,
+where `[]` denotes optional things and `{}` denotes a comma-separated
+list):
+
+    CLOSURE = ['ref'] '|' [SELF] {ARG} '|' ['->' TYPE] EXPR
+    SELF    =  ':' | '&' ':' | '&' 'mut' ':'
+    ARG     = ID [ ':' TYPE ]
+
+The optional keyword `ref` is used to indicate whether this closure
+captures *by reference* or *by value*.
+
+Closures are always translated into a fresh struct type with one field
+per upvar. In a by-value closure, the types of these fields will be
+the same as the types of the corresponding upvars (modulo `&mut`
+reborrows, see below). In a by-reference closure, the types of these
+fields will be a suitable reference (`&`, `&mut`, etc) to the
+variables being borrowed.
+
+### By-value closures
+
+The default form for a closure is by-value. This implies that all
+upvars which are referenced are copied/moved into the closure as
+appropriate. There is one special case: if the type of the value to be
+moved is `&mut`, we will "reborrow" the value when it is copied into
+the closure. That is, given an upvar `x` of type `&'a mut T`, the
+value which is actually captured will have type `&'b mut T` where `'b
+<= 'a`. This rule is consistent with our general treatment of `&mut`,
+which is to aggressively reborrow wherever possible; moreover, this
+rule cannot introduce additional compilation errors, it can only make
+more programs successfully typecheck.
+
+### By-reference closures
+
+A *by-reference* closure is a convenience form in which values used in
+the closure are converted into references before being captured.  By
+reference closures are always rewritable into by value closures if
+desired, but the rewrite can often be cumbersome and annoying.
+
+Here is a (rather artificial) example of a by-reference closure in
+use:
+
+    let in_vec: Vec<int> = ...;
+    let mut out_vec: Vec<int> = Vec::new();
+    let opt_int: Option<int> = ...;
+
+    opt_int.map(ref |v| {
+        out_vec.push(v);
+        in_vec.fold(v, |a, &b| a + b)
+    });
+
+This could be rewritten into a by-value closure as follows:
+
+    let in_vec: Vec<int> = ...;
+    let mut out_vec: Vec<int> = Vec::new();
+    let opt_int: Option<int> = ...;
+
+    opt_int.map({
+        let in_vec = &in_vec;
+        let out_vec = &mut in_vec;
+        |v| {
+            out_vec.push(v);
+            in_vec.fold(v, |a, &b| a + b)
+        }
+    })
+
+In this case, the capture closed over two variables, `in_vec` and
+`out_vec`. As you can see, the compiler automatically infers, for each
+variable, how it should be borrowed and inserts the appropriate
+capture.
+
+In the body of a `ref` closure, the upvars continue to have the same
+type as they did in the outer environment. For example, the type of a
+reference to `in_vec` in the above example is always `Vec<int>`,
+whether or not it appears as part of a `ref` closure. This is not only
+convenient, it is required to make it possible to infer whether each
+variable is borrowed as an `&T` or `&mut T` borrow.
+
+Note that there are some cases where the compiler internally employs a
+form of borrow that is not available in the core language,
+`&uniq`. This borrow does not permit aliasing (like `&mut`) but does
+not require mutability (like `&`). This is required to allow
+transparent closing over of `&mut` pointers as
+[described in this blog post][p].
+
+**Evolutionary note:** It is possible to evolve by-reference
+closures in the future in a backwards compatible way. The goal would
+be to cause more programs to type-check by default. Two possible
+extensions follow:
+
+- Detect when values are *moved* and hence should be taken by value
+  rather than by reference. (This is only applicable to once
+  closures.)
+- Detect when it is only necessary to borrow a sub-path. Imagine a
+  closure like `ref || use(&context.variable_map)`. Currently, this
+  closure will borrow `context`, even though it only *uses* the field
+  `variable_map`. As a result, it is sometimes necessary to rewrite
+  the closure to have the form `{let v = &context.variable_map; ||
+  use(v)}`.  In the future, however, we could extend the inference so
+  that rather than borrowing `context` to create the closure, we would
+  borrow `context.variable_map` directly.
+
+## Closure sugar in trait references
+
+The current type for closures, `|T1, T2| -> R`, will be repurposed as
+syntactic sugar for a reference to the appropriate `Fn` trait. This
+shorthand be used any place that a trait reference is appropriate. The
+full type will be written as one of the following:
+
+    <'a...'z> |T1...Tn|: K -> R
+    <'a...'z> |&mut: T1...Tn|: K -> R
+    <'a...'z> |&: T1...Tn|: K -> R
+    <'a...'z> |: T1...Tn|: K -> R
+
+Each of which would then be translated into the following trait
+references, respectively:
+
+    <'a...'z> Fn<(T1...Tn), R> + K
+    <'a...'z> Fn<(T1...Tn), R> + K
+    <'a...'z> FnShare<(T1...Tn), R> + K
+    <'a...'z> FnOnce<(T1...Tn), R> + K
+
+Note that the bound lifetimes `'a...'z` are not in scope for the bound
+`K`.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+This model is more complex than the existing model in some respects
+(but the existing model does not serve the full set of desired use cases).
+
+# Alternatives
+
+There is one aspect of the design that is still under active
+discussion:
+
+**Introduce a more generic sugar.** It was proposed that we could
+introduce `Trait(A, B) -> C` as syntactic sugar for `Trait<(A,B),C>`
+rather than retaining the form `|A,B| -> C`. This is appealing but
+removes the correspondence between the expression form and the
+corresponding type. One (somewhat open) question is whether there will
+be additional traits that mirror fn types that might benefit from this
+more general sugar.
+
+**Tweak trait names.** In conjunction with the above, there is some
+concern that the type name `fn(A) -> B` for a bare function with no
+environment is too similar to `Fn(A) -> B` for a closure.  To remedy
+that, we could change the name of the trait to something like
+`Closure(A) -> B` (naturally the other traits would be renamed to
+match).
+
+Then there are a large number of permutations and options that were
+largely rejected:
+
+**Only offer by-value closures.** We tried this and found it
+required a lot of painful rewrites of perfectly reasonable code.
+
+**Make by-reference closures the default.** We felt this was
+inconsistent with the language as a whole, which tends to make "by
+value" the default (e.g., `x` vs `ref x` in patterns, `x` vs `&x` in
+expressions, etc.).
+
+**Use a capture clause syntax that borrows individual variables.** "By
+value" closures combined with `let` statements already serve this
+role. Simply specifying "by-reference closure" also gives us room to
+continue improving inference in the future in a backwards compatible
+way. Moreover, the syntactic space around closures expressions is
+extremely constrained and we were unable to find a satisfactory
+syntax, particularly when combined with self-type annotations.
+Finally, if we decide we *do* want the ability to have "mostly
+by-value" closures, we can easily extend the current syntax by writing
+something like `(ref x, ref mut y) || ...` etc.
+
+**Retain the proc expression form.** It was proposed that we could
+retain the `proc` expression form to specify a by-value closure and
+have `||` expressions be by-reference. Frankly, the main objection to
+this is that nobody likes the `proc` keyword.
+
+**Use variadic generics in place of tuple arguments.** While variadic
+generics are an interesting addition in their own right, we'd prefer
+not to introduce a dependency between closures and variadic
+generics. Having all arguments be placed into a tuple is also a
+simpler model overall. Moreover, native ABIs on platforms of interest
+treat a structure passed by value identically to distinct
+arguments. Finally, given that trait calls have the "Rust" ABI, which
+is not specified, we can always tweak the rules if necessary (though
+their advantages for tooling when the Rust ABI closely matches the
+native ABI).
+
+**Use inference to determine the self type of a closure rather than an
+annotation.** We retain this option for future expansion, but it is
+not clear whether we can always infer the self type of a
+closure. Moreover, using inference rather a default raises the
+question of what to do for a type like `|int| -> uint`, where
+inference is not possible.
+
+**Default to something other than `&mut self`.** It is our belief that
+this is the most common use case for closures.
+
+# Transition plan
+
+TBD. pcwalton is working furiously as we speak.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+## Closures that are quantified over lifetimes
+
+A separate RFC is needed to describe bound lifetimes in trait
+references. For example, today one can write a type like `<'a> |&'a A|
+-> &'a B`, which indicates a closure that takes and returns a
+reference with the same lifetime specified by the caller at each
+call-site. Note that a trait reference like `Fn<(&'a A), &'a B>`,
+while syntactically similar, does *not* have the same meaning because
+it lacks the universal quantifier `<'a>`. Therefore, in the second
+case, `'a` refers to some specific lifetime `'a`, rather than being a
+lifetime parameter that is specified at each callsite. The high-level
+summary of the change therefore is to permit trait references like
+`<'a> Fn<(&'a A), &'a B>`; in this case, the value of `<'a>` will be
+specified each time a method or other member of the trait is accessed.
+
+[p]: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/05/13/focusing-on-ownership/