I have been trying to come up with a reasonable set of rules for deciding when a pattern binding ought to be a move and when it ought to be a copy and utterly failing. Simultaneously, pcwalton, brson, and I kind of simultaneously arrived at an alternate design that tries to simplify the copy/move distinction. I think that it also solves the question of when to copy/move pattern bindings in a nice way. Therefore, I wanted to write up this proposal.

The idea is to repurpose the idea of an implicitly copyable (IC) type. Expressions whose type is not IC would be moved by default. This implies that an assignment like x = a.b.c could be either a copy or a move, depending on the type of a.b.c. If the type of a.b.c were a non-IC type, but you wanted to force a copy, you would write x = a.b.c.clone() (more on the clone() method later). Today, in contrast, x = a.b.c would always be a copy unless you write x = move a.b.c.

When we were initially discussing this design, it seemed simpler to me to make it so that the rules for copies and moves were independent of the type, particularly as types are inferred. I now no longer believe this to be true. Some discussion on that lies below.

This same reasoning would apply not only to expressions but also to other uses, such as capture clauses and bindings. That means that if you write a closure that references a non-IC type, it always moves that value into its environment, and never copies. If you wish to copy, you simply make a clone of the value and close over that.

Similarly, in a by-value binding, we decide whether the binding moves or copies based on the type of the value being bound. A binding to a non-IC type will move by default, unless it is declared as a ref binding.

I am not really sure what else there is to say, I think this really does sum up the complete set of rules:

  • if the expression is of a type that is not IC, it is moved (naturally, errors will ensue if the source of that value is not safe to move);
  • captures of variables whose types are not IC are “by-move” captures;
  • by-value bindings whose type is not IC are moves.

Maybe there is another case? Let me know if you think I forgot something.

What’s with this clone() method?

I think we should have two traits that describe whether a type is copyable: Copy and Clone.

Copy is implicitly defined for IC types. It contains no methods. It indicates that something can be cheaply copied using memcpy, basically (in today’s implementation, we’d also have to increment ref-counts for embedded @T values, but that requirement would go away with a tracing GC).

The Clone trait is intended for copying any kind of value. It defines a single method, clone(), which returns a new copy of the receiver. This can be custom defined by different types, or you can derive a default implementation.

Generic functions in the standard library that must perform copies would generally be written to take a bound of Clone, not Copy. Copy would likely only be used in specific cases.

So what are the syntactic implications?

We lose two keywords (copy, move), but also the concept of capture clauses altogether. Moreover, there are only two kinds of bindings: by-value bindings (written a), and ref bindings, written ref a.

Wait, doesn’t this make it hard to know what your program does?

I used to think it would be easier to follow the flow of the program if copy/move were defined syntactically rather than being based on the (sometimes inferred) type. I now think this was wrong—or rather, it was missing the forest for the trees.

It’s true that using an explicit copy or move keyword makes it clearer what any particular expression does. But it turns out that, to a first approximation, you never want to copy non-IC types. In today’s system, you have to keep track in your head of which values are those that you should not copy and make sure to add extra move annotations and so forth for those particular values.

In the proposed system, in contrast, you know that nothing will be copied except for IC types unless you see a call to clone(). So instead of having to track the code and make sure that move is used everywhere it’s supposed to be used, you only have to look for the calls to clone() and make sure that they make sense.

Moreover, before writing this post, I spent some time trying to come up with a sensible set of syntactic rules for designating when a pattern match ought to be a move versus a copy. I failed. There are so many scenarios to consider, and it turns out that our current rules are utterly inconsistent. For example:

let v = bar().f;                    /* copies */
let Foo {f: v} = bar();             /* moves  */
match bar() { Foo {f: v} => {       /* copies */ } }
match bar() { Foo {f: move v} => {  /* moves  */ } }
match bar().f { move v => {         /* error  */ } }

Any rule that wants to really work correctly I think will ultimately require either a very large number of move annotations or else some kind of rules that examine the ownership of fields and so forth and make a decision based on that information. Once you take that final step you might as well consider the type.

What kinds of expressions are considered safe to move?

First off, any rvalue is always moved (there is no way to do otherwise, it has no home in memory). With respect to lvalues, the current rules we have are inconsistent, but there is a simple rule that we can use: any data owned by the current stack frame and can be moved. This is the same set of data that a pure fn can modify and so forth.

Historical precedent?

I think that most every language that includes affine or linear types has ‘move-by-default’ semantics. But us.

Some open questions

  • Is the division into Copy/Clone traits correct? For example, I could also see removing the Copy trait altogether and renaming Clone to Copy.
  • I could imagine that we keep the copy keyword and allow it to be used on pattern bindings and expression to force a copy, rather than using a call to clone() for this purpose. The advantage of keeping the keyword is that it can be applied to pattern bindings (and in capture clauses too, if we wanted). The disadvantage is that it’s another keyword. Seems simpler to just use a method for this purpose.
  • Should it be possible for types to “opt-in” to the Copy trait? Maybe I want to define a struct that is implicitly copyable, even though it contains mutable fields, because I know that this struct does not carry identity (note, though, that you can do this today by using an @mut type).

Background: Which types are implicitly copyable?

We already have the notion of an implicitly copyable type: this is a type that (1) is Const (contains no mutable fields) and (2) contains no owned pointers (~T). So, all scalar types (int, uint, etc) are implicitly copyable, as are managed and borrowed points like @T and &T, as well as structs and enums composed of those types. Basically, this is the set of types that we can cheaply copy from one place to another without having to do any memory allocation.

The reason that types with mutable fields are not considered implicitly copyable is that those tend not to be values but rather types with identity. Therefore, copying those is generally an error.

Note that due to the rules of inherited mutability, you can easily create and mutate small structs and so forth without declaring their fields to be mutable. In fact, this is the Right Way To Do It, for reasons that I won’t dive into here, since I have a big upcoming blog post about it. But here is a short example of what I mean:

// Note: this type is implicitly copyable, no mutability decls
struct Point { x: float, y: float }

fn compute_point(...) -> Point { 
    let mut pnt = Point {x: 0f, y: 0f};
    pnt.x += 1;
    pnt.y += 1;
    while some_condition_holds() {
        adjust_point(&mut pnt);
    return pnt;

fn adjust_point(pnt: &mut Point) {
    pnt.x = adjust_x(pnt.x);
    pnt.y = adjust_y(pnt.y);

Here the type Point is implicitly copyable, but you can see that by storing it in a mutable field we are still able to mutate its fields freely, and even pass it off to other functions.