This blog post describes a maximally minimal proposal for view types. It comes out of a converastion at RustNation I had with lcnr and Jack Huey, where we talking about various improvements to the language that are “in the ether”, that basically everybody wants to do, and what it would take to get them over the line.

A few years back I proposed view types as an extension to Rust’s type system to let us address the problem of (false) inter-procedural borrow conflicts. The basic idea is to introduce a “view type” {f1, f2} Type¹, meaning “an instance of Type where you can only access the fields f1 or f2”. The main purpose is to let you write function signatures like & {f1, f2} self or &mut {f1, f2} self that define what fields a given type might access. I was thinking about this idea again and I wanted to try and explore it a bit more deeply, to see how it could actually work, and to address the common question of how to have places in types without exposing the names of private fields.

I wanted to write about an idea that’s been kicking around in the back of my mind for some time. I call it view types. The basic idea is to give a way for an &mut or & reference to identify which fields it is actually going to access. The main use case for this is having “disjoint” methods that don’t interfere with one another.

This is not a proposal (yet?)

To be clear, this isn’t an RFC or a proposal, at least not yet. It’s some early stage ideas that I wanted to document. I’d love to hear reactions and thoughts, as I discuss in the conclusion.