Tracking Issue for min_exhaustive_patterns

[Nadrieril]

This is a tracking issue for the experimental "minimal exhaustive patterns" feature (as per the T-lang experimental feature process).
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(min_exhaustive_patterns)].

Proposal

Pattern-matching on empty types is tricky around unsafe code. For that reason, current stable rust conservatively requires arms for empty types in all but the simplest case. It has long been the intention to allow omitting empty arms when it's safe to do so. The exhaustive_patterns feature allows the omission of all empty arms, but hasn't been stabilized because that was deemed dangerous around unsafe code.

This feature aims to stabilize an uncontroversial subset of exhaustive_patterns. Namely: when we're matching on data by-value, then we allow empty arms to be omitted. E.g.:

let x: Result<T, !> = foo();
match x { // ok
    Ok(y) => ...,
}
let Ok(y) = x; // ok

In other cases (behind references, pointers or unions) we keep stable behavior i.e. we require arms for the empty cases. This is because these cases may be reachable without UB (either now or in the future, until T-opsem decides otherwise).

unsafe {
    let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
    match *ptr {
        Ok(x) => { ... }
        Err(_) => { ... } // still required
    }
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
    Ok(x) => { ... }
    Err(&_) => { ... } // still required
}

Note: never_patterns will make these remaining cases more convenient to handle. The two features nicely complement each other.

Comparison with stable rust

This proposal only affects match checking of empty types (i.e. types with no valid values). Non-empty types behave the same with or without this feature. Note that everything below is phrased in terms of match but applies equallly to if let and other pattern-matching expressions.

To be precise, an empty type is:

• an enum with no variants;
• the never type !;
• a struct with a visible field of empty type (and no #[non_exhaustive] annotation);
• en enum with all variants empty (and no #[non_exhaustive] annotation).

For normal types, exhaustiveness checking requires that we list all variants (or use a wildcard). For empty types it's more subtle: in some cases we require a _ pattern even though there are no valid values that can match it. This is where the difference lies regarding min_exhaustive_patterns.

Stable rust

Under stable rust, a _ is required for all empty types, except specifically: if the matched expression is of type ! (the never type) or EmptyEnum (where EmptyEnum is an enum with no variants), then the _ is not required.

let foo: Result<u32, !> = ...;
match foo {
    Ok(x) => ...,
    Err(_) => ..., // required
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
    Ok(x) => ...,
    Err(_) => ..., // required
}
let foo: &! = ...;
match foo {
    _ => ..., // required
}
fn blah(foo: (u32, !)) {
    match foo {
        _ => ..., // required
    }
}
unsafe {
    let ptr: *const ! = ...;
    match *ptr {} // allowed
    let ptr: *const (u32, !) = ...;
    match *ptr {
        (x, _) => { ... } // required
    }
    let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
    match *ptr {
        Ok(x) => { ... }
        Err(_) => { ... } // required
    }
}

min_exhaustive_patterns

With min_exhaustive_patterns, a pattern of an empty type can be omitted if (and only if):

• the match scrutinee expression has type ! or EmptyEnum;
• or the empty type is matched by value.

In all other cases, a _ is required to match on an empty type.

let foo: Result<u32, !> = ...;
match foo {
    Ok(x) => ..., // `Err` not required
}
let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...;
match foo {
    Ok(x) => ...,
    Err(_) => ..., // required because `!` is under a dereference
}
let foo: &! = ...;
match foo {
    _ => ..., // required because `!` is under a dereference
}
fn blah(foo: (u32, !)) {
    match foo {} // allowed
}
unsafe {
    let ptr: *const ! = ...;
    match *ptr {} // allowed
    let ptr: *const (u32, !) = ...;
    match *ptr {
        (x, _) => { ... } // required because the matched place is under a (pointer) dereference
    }
    let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...;
    match *ptr {
        Ok(x) => { ... }
        Err(_) => { ... } // required because the matched place is under a (pointer) dereference
    }
}

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation.
They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions.
A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature.
Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

• Implement the feature
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)
• Stabilization PR (see instructions on rustc-dev-guide)

Unresolved Questions

Implementation history

Beta Give feedback

1. Add the min_exhaustive_patterns feature gate #118803
   A-exhaustiveness-checking F-exhaustive_patterns S-waiting-on-bors T-compiler +4
   
2. Make min_exhaustive_patterns match exhaustive_patterns better #120775
   F-exhaustive_patterns S-waiting-on-bors T-compiler +3
   
3. mark min_exhaustive_patterns as complete #120742
   F-exhaustive_patterns S-waiting-on-bors T-compiler +3
   
4. Use min_exhaustive_patterns in core & std #122255
   F-exhaustive_patterns S-waiting-on-bors T-libs +3
   
5. Stabilize min_exhaustive_patterns #122792
   F-exhaustive_patterns F-min_exhaustive_patterns S-waiting-on-bors T-lang disposition-merge finished-final-comment-period merged-by-bors perf-regression relnotes +9
   

[Nadrieril]

Hi T-lang! I would like to move forward with this experiment.

Summary of the feature

This feature allows users to omit match arms on empty types when the empty type is matched by-value. This is a guaranteed-sound subset of the exhaustive_patterns feature. This allows:

enum Void {}
let x: Result<T, Void> = foo();
match x { // ok
    Ok(y) => ...,
}
let Ok(y) = x; // ok

If x: &Result<T, Void> or x: Result<T, &Void> or we're matching behind a pointer/union then this changes nothing (i.e. we require a Err(_) arm like on stable rust). In contrast, exhaustive_patterns allows omitting match arms on empty types in all cases, which can cause UB. For more detail see the OP.

Because it's a well-behaved and useful subset, I'd like to move to stabilize it soon. We can think about the rest of exhaustive_patterns later. Never patterns are a likely part of the final plan, and they need more time (and would benefit from this being stabilized).

Proposal

If T-lang approves, I will:

• mark the feature gate as non-incomplete (that's the part I feel I need approval for);
• use min_exhaustive_patterns instead of exhaustive_patterns in rustc, std and tests wherever possible;
• call for the testing of this feature;
• make a stabilization PR, and ask for T-lang approval again.

[Nadrieril]

For the triage meeting I prepared step 1 and 2 here: #120742

It appears that the vast majority of in-tree use cases of exhaustive_patterns are covered by min_exhaustive_patterns, as hoped.

[nikomatsakis]

@rfcbot fcp merge

This covers the majority of cases I've encountered myself. I'd be very excited to see this subset move forward. Let's do it!

[rfcbot]

Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @pnkfelix
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[scottmcm]

This sounds great. By-value-only covers the two places that I immediately think of for this:

1. let Ok(x) = foo.try_into(); where it's using Error = !, and
2. The matches that are used for residuals in the try_trait_v2 stuff.

So I'd be quite happy to start with that and worry about the rest afterwards.

@rfcbot reviewed

[scottmcm]

Sorry, it's too late for me to be looking at things, apparently, if I can't even hit the right button 🤦

Restarting the FCP from #119612 (comment)
@rfcbot fcp merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @scottmcm has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @pnkfelix
• @scottmcm
• @tmandry

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[Mark-Simulacrum]

How do we treat a #[non_exhaustive] tagged enum? That should probably not be treated as empty even if it currently is, for the purposes of this feature. (Checking in playground is hard since it's a cross-crate feature).

[Nadrieril]

Good point: for both #[non_exhaustive] and private fields we pretend the type is inhabited subject to the expected visibility rules. I've updated the OP with a definition of "empty" that specifies this.

[traviscross]

@rustbot labels -I-lang-nominated

This is going into FCP, so we can unnominate.

Thanks to @Nadrieril for pushing this forward.

[U007D]

I've added this to this week's Call for Testing section in This Week in Rust and have removed the call-for-testing label. Please feel free to re-add this label if you would like this tracking issue to re-appear in a future issue of TWiR.

Edit: looks like I don't have permission to remove the call-for-testing label.

[Nadrieril]

Thank you! I've removed the label for you.

[Nadrieril]

Stabilization PR: #122792

[Nadrieril]

This is now stabilized!