I’ve been hard at work the last month or so on trying to complete the non-lexical lifetimes RFC. I’m pretty excited about how it’s shaping up. I wanted to write a kind of “meta” blog post talking about the current state of the proposal – almost there! – and how you could get involved with helping to push it over the finish line.


What can I say, I’m loquacious! In case you don’t want to read the full post, here are the highlights:

  • The NLL proposal is looking good. As far as I know, the proposal covers all major intraprocedural shortcomings of the existing borrow checker. The appendix at the end of this post talks about the problems that we don’t address (yet).
  • The draft RFC is available in a GitHub repository:
    • Read it over! Open issues! Open PRs!
    • In particular, if there is some pattern you think may not be covered, please let me know about it by opening an issue.
  • There is a working prototype as well:
    • The prototype includes region inference as well as the borrow checker.
    • I hope to expand it to become the normative prototype of how the borrow checker works, allowing us to easily experiment with extensions and modifications – analogous to Chalk.

Background: what the proposal aims to fix

The goal of this proposal is to fix the intra-procedural shortcomings of the existing borrow checker. That is, to fix those cases where, without looking at any other functions or knowing anything about what they do, we can see that some function is safe. The core of the proposal is the idea of defining reference lifetimes in terms of the control-flow graph, as I discussed (over a year ago!) in my introductory blog post; but that alone isn’t enough to address some common annoyances, so I’ve grown the proposal somewhat. In addition to defining how to infer and define non-lexical lifetimes themselves, it now includes an improved definition of the Rust borrow checker – that is, how to decide which loans are in scope at any particular point and which actions are illegal as a result.

When combined with RFC 2025, this means that we will accept two more classes of programs. First, what I call “nested method calls”:

impl Foo {
  fn add(&mut self, value: Point) { ... }
  fn compute(&self) -> Point { ... }
  fn process(&mut self) {
    self.add(self.compute()); // Error today! But not with RFC 2025.

Second, what I call “reference overwrites”. Currently, the borrow checker forbids you from writing code that updates an &mut variable whose referent is borrowed. This most commonly shows up when iterating down a slice in place (try it on play):

fn search(mut data: &mut [Data]) -> bool {
  loop {
    if let Some((first, tail)) = data.split_first_mut() {
      if is_match(first) {
        return true;
      data = tail; // Error today! But not with the NLL proposal.
    } else {
      return false;

The problem here is that the current borrow checker sees that data.split_first_mut() borrows *data (which has type [Data]). Normally, when you borrow some path, then all prefixes of the path become immutable, and hence borrowing *data means that, later on, modifying data in data = tail is illegal. This rule makes sense for “interior” data like fields: if you’ve borrowed the field of a struct, then overwriting the struct itself will also overwrite the field. But the rule is too strong for references and indirection: if you overwrite an &mut, you don’t affect the data it refers to. You can workaround this problem by forcing a move of data (e.g., by writing {data}.split_first_mut()), but you shouldn’t have to. (This issue has been filed for some time as #10520, which also lists some other workarounds.)

Draft RFC

The Draft RFC is almost complete. I’ve created a GitHub repository containing the text. I’ve also opened issues with some of the things I wanted to get done before posting it, though the descriptions are vague and it’s not clear that all of them are necessary. If you’re interested in helping out – please, read it over! Open issues on things that you find confusing, or open PRs with suggestions, typos, whatever. I’d like to make this RFC into a group effort.

The prototype

The other thing that I’m pretty excited about is that I have a working prototype of these ideas. The prototype takes as input individual .nll files, each of which contains a few struct definitions as well as the control-flow graph of a single function. The tests are aimed at demonstrating some particular scenario. For example, the borrowck-walk-linked-list.nll test covers the “reference overwrites” that I was talking about earlier. I’ll go over it in some detail to give you the idea.

The test begins with struct declarations. These are written in a very concise form because I was too lazy to make it more user-friendly:

struct List<+> {
  value: 0,
  successor: Box<List<0>>

// Equivalent to:
// struct List<T> {
//   value: T,
//   successor: Box<List<T>>
// }

As you can see, the type parameters are not named. Instead, we specify the variance (+ here means “covariant”). Within the function body, we reference type parameters via a number, counting backwards from the end of the list. Since there is only one parameter (T, in the Rust example), then 0 refers to T.

(In real life, this struct would use Option<Box<List<T>>>, but the prototype doesn’t model enums yet, so this is using a simplified form that is “close enough” from the point-of-view of the checker itself. We also don’t model raw pointers yet. PRs welcome!)

After the struct definitions, there are some let declarations, declaring the global variables:

let list: &'list mut List<()>;
let value: &'value mut ();

Perhaps surprisingly, the named lifetimes like 'list and 'value correspond to inference variables. That is, they are not like named lifetimes in a Rust function – which are the one major thing I’ve yet to implement – but rather correspond to inference variables. Giving them names allows for us to add “assertions” (we’ll see one later) that test what results got inferred. You can also use '_ to have the parser generate a unique name for you if you don’t feel like giving an explicit one.

After the local variables, comes the control-flow graph declarations, as a series of basic-block declarations:

block START {
    list = use();
    goto LOOP;

Here, list = use() means “initialize list and use the (empty) list of arguments”. I’d like to improve this to support named function prototypes, but for now the prototype just has the idea of an ‘opaque use’. Basic blocks can optionally have successors, specified using goto.

One thing the prototype understands pretty well are borrows:

block LOOP {
    value = &'b1 mut (*list).value;
    list = &'b2 mut (*list).successor.data;
    goto LOOP EXIT;

An expression like &'b1 mut (*list).value borrows (*list).value mutably for the lifetime 'b1 – note that the lifetime of the borrow itself is independent from the lifetime where the reference ends up. Perhaps surprisingly, the reference can have a bigger lifetime than the borrow itself: in particular, a single reference variable may be assigned from multiple borrows in disjoint parts of the graph.

Finally, the tests support two kinds of assertions. First, you can mark a given line of code as being “in error” by adding a //! comment. There isn’t one in this example, but you can see them in other tests; these identify errors that the borrow checker would report. We can also have assertions of various kinds. These check the output from lifetime inference. This test has a single assertion:

assert LOOP/0 in 'b2;

This assertion specifies that the point LOOP/0 (that is, the start of the loop) is contained within the lifetime 'b2 – that is, we realize that the reference produced by (*list).successor.data may still be in use at LOOP/0. But note that this does not prevent us from reassigning list (nor borrowing (*list).successor.data). This is because the new borrow checker is smart enough to understand that list has been reassigned in the meantime, and hence that the borrows from different loop iterations do not overlap.

Conclusion and how you can help

I think the NLL proposal itself is close to being ready to submit – I want to add a section on named lifetimes first, and add them to the prototype – but there is still lots of interesting work to be done. Naturally, reading and improving the RFC would be useful. However, I’d also like to improve the prototype. I would like to see it evolve into a more complete – but simplified – model of the borrow checker, that could serve as a good basis for analyzing the Rust type system and investigating extensions. Ideally, we would merge it with chalk, as the two complement one another: put together, they form a fairly complete model of the Rust type system (the missing piece is the initial round of type checking and coercion, which I would eventually like to model in chalk anyhow). If this vision interests you, please reach out! I have open issues on both projects, though I’ve not had time to write in tons of details – leave a comment if something sparks your interest, and I’d be happy to give more details and mentor it to completion as well.

Questions or comments?

Take it to internals!

Appendix: What the proposal won’t fix

I also want to mention a few kinds of borrow check errors that the current RFC will not eliminate – and is not intended to. These are generally errors that cross procedural boundaries in some form or another. For each case, I’ll give a short example, and give some pointers to the current thinking in how we might address it.

Closure desugaring. The first kind of error has to do with the closure desugaring. Right now, closures always capture local variables, even if the closure only uses some sub-path of the variable internally:

let get_len = || self.vec.len(); // borrows `self`, not `self.vec`
self.vec2.push(...); // error: self is borrowed

This was discussed on an internals thread; as I commented there, I’d like to fix this by making the closure desugaring smarter, and I’d love to mentor someone through such an RFC! However, it is out of scope for this one, since it does not concern the borrow check itself, but rather the details of the closure transformation.

Disjoint fields across functions. Another kind of error is when you have one method that only uses a field a and another that only uses some field b; right now, you can’t express that, and hence these two methods cannot be used “in parallel” with one another:

impl Foo {
  fn get_a(&self) -> &A { &self.a }
  fn inc_b(&mut self) { self.b.value += 1; }
  fn bar(&mut self) {
    let a = self.get_a();
    self.inc_b(); // Error: self is already borrowed

The fix for this is to refactor so as to expose the fact that the methods operate on disjoint data. For example, one can factor out the methods into methods on the fields themselves:

fn bar(&mut self) {
  let a = self.a.get();

This way, when looking at bar() alone, we see borrows of self.a and self.b, rather than two borrows of self. Another technique is to introduce “free functions” (e.g., get(&self.a) and inc(&mut self.b)) that expose more clearly which fields are operated upon, or to inline the method bodies. I’d like to fix this, but there are a lot of considerations at play: see this comment on an internals thread for my current thoughts. (A similar problem sometimes arises around Box<T> and other smart pointer types; the desugaring leads to rustc being more conservative than you might expect.)

Self-referential structs. The final limitation we are not fixing yet is the inability to have “self-referential structs”. That is, you cannot have a struct that stores, within itself, an arena and pointers into that arena, and then move that struct around. This comes up in a number of settings. There are various workarounds: sometimes you can use a vector with indices, for example, or the owning_ref crate. The latter, when combined with associated type constructors, might be an adequate solution for some uses cases, actually (it’s basically a way of modeling “existential lifetimes” in library code). For the case of futures especially, the ?Move RFC proposes another lightweight and interesting approach.