Destructuring assignment

text/0000-destructuring-assignment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,363 @@
+- Feature Name: `destructuring_assignment`
+- Start Date: 2020-04-17
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#71126](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71126)
+- Proof-of-concept: [rust-lang/rust#71156](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71156)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+We allow destructuring on assignment, as in `let` declarations. For instance, the following are now
+accepted:
+
+```rust
+(a, (b.x.y, c)) = (0, (1, 2));
+(x, y, .., z) = (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0);
+[_, f, *baz()] = foo();
+[g, _, h, ..] = ['a', 'w', 'e', 's', 'o', 'm', 'e', '!'];
+Struct { x: a, y: b } = bar();
+Struct { x, y } = Struct { x: 5, y: 6 };
+```
+
+This brings assignment in line with `let` declaration, in which destructuring is permitted. This
+will simplify and improve idiomatic code involving mutability.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Destructuring assignment increases the consistency of the language, in which assignment is typically
+expected to behave similarly to variable declarations. The aim is that this feature will increase
+the clarity and concision of idiomatic Rust, primarily in code that makes use of mutability. This
+feature is [highly desired among Rust developers](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372).
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+You may destructure a value when making an assignment, just as when you declare variables. See the
+[Summary](#Summary) for examples. The following structures may be destructured:
+
+- Tuples.
+- Slices.
+- Structs (inclduing unit and tuple structs).
+- Unique variants of enums.
+
+You may use `_` and `..` as in a normal declaration pattern to ignore certain values.
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+The feature as described here has been implemented as a proof-of-concept
+(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71156). It follows essentially the [suggestions of
+@Kimundi](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372#issuecomment-214022963) and [of
+@drunwald](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372#issuecomment-262519146).
+
+The Rust compiler already parses complex expressions on the left-hand side of an assignment, but
+does not handle them other than emitting an error later in compilation. We propose to add
+special-casing for several classes of expressions on the left-hand side of an assignment, which act
+in accordance with destructuring assignment: i.e. as if the left-hand side were actually a pattern.
+Actually supporting patterns directly on the left-hand side of an assignment significantly
+complicates Rust's grammar and it is not clear that it is even technically feasible. Conversely,
+handling some classes of expressions is much simpler, and is indistinguishable to users, who will
+receive pattern-oriented diagnostics due to the desugaring of expressions into patterns.
+
+In effect, we are extending the [place
+expressions](https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/expressions.html#place-expressions-and-value-expressions) (also called "lvalues")
+that Rust accepts by the following:
+
+- Underscore: `_`.
+- Tuples: `(place, place, place)`, `(place, .., place)`, `(.., place, place)`, `(place, place, ..)`.
+- Slices: `[place, place, place]`, `[place, .., place]`, `[.., place, place]`, `[place, place, ..]`.
+- Tuple structs: `path(place, place, place)`, `path(place, .., place)`, `path(.., place, place)`,
+  `path(place, place, ..)`.
+- Structs: `path { field: place, field: place }`, `path { field: place, field: place, .. }`.
+- Unit structs: `path`.
+
+The general idea is that we will desugar the following complex assignments as demonstrated.
+
+```rust
+(a, b) = (3, 4);
+
+[a, b] = [3, 4];
+
+Struct { x: a, y: b } = Struct { x: 3, y: 4};
+
+// desugars to:
+
+{
+    let (_a, _b) = (3, 4);
+    a = _a;
+    b = _b;
+}
+
+{
+    let [_a, _b] = [3, 4];
+    a = _a;
+    b = _b;
+}
+
+{
+    let Struct { x: _a, y: _b } = Struct { x: 3, y: 4};
+    a = _a;
+    b = _b;
+}
+```
+
+Note that the desugaring ensures that destructuring assignment, like normal assignment, is an
+expression.
+
+We support the following classes of expressions:
+
+- Tuples.
+- Slices.
+- Structs (inclduing unit and tuple structs).
+- Unique variants of enums.
+
+In the desugaring, we convert the expression `(a, b)` into an analogous pattern `(_a, _b)` (whose
+identifiers are fresh and thus do not conflict with existing variables). A nice side-effect is that
+we inherit the diagnostics for normal pattern-matching, so users benefit from existing diagnostics
+for destructuring declarations.
+
+Nested structures are destructured appropriately, for instance:
+
+```rust
+let (a, b, c);
+((a, b), c) = ((1, 2), 3);
+
+// desugars to:
+
+let (a, b, c);
+{
+    let ((_a, _b), _c) = ((1, 2), 3);
+    a = _a;
+    b = _b;
+    c = _c;
+};
+```
+
+We also allow arbitrary parenthesisation, as with patterns, although unnecessary parentheses will
+trigger the `unused_parens` lint.
+
+Note that `#[non_exhaustive]` must be taken into account properly: enums marked `#[non_exhaustive]`
+may not have their variants destructured, and structs marked `#[non_exhaustive]` may only be
+destructured using `..`.
+
+## Diagnostics
+
+It is worth being explicit that, in the implementation, the diagnostics that are reported are
+pattern diagnostics: that is, because the desugaring occurs regardless, the messages will imply that
+the left-hand side of an assignment is a true pattern (the one the expression has been converted
+to). For example:
+
+```rust
+[*a] = [1, 2]; // error: pattern requires 1 element but array has 2
+```
+
+Whilst `[*a]` is not strictly speaking a pattern, it behaves similarly to one in this context. We
+think that this results in a better user experience, as intuitively the left-hand side of a
+destructuring assignment acts like a pattern "in spirit", but this is technically false: we should
+be careful that this does not result in misleading diagnostics.
+
+## Underscores and ellipses
+
+In patterns, we may use `_` and `..` to ignore certain values, without binding them. While range
+patterns already have analogues in terms of range expressions, the underscore wildcard pattern
+currently has no analogous expression. We thus add one, which is only permitted in the left-hand side
+of an assignment: any other use results in the same "reserved identifier" error that currently
+occurs for invalid uses of `_` as an expression. A consequence is that the following becomes valid:
+
+```rust
+_ = 5;
+```
+
+Functional record update syntax (i.e. `..x`) is forbidden in destructuring assignment, as we believe
+there is no sensible and clear semantics for it in this setting. This restriction could be relaxed
+in the future if a use-case is found.
+
+The desugaring treats the `_` expression as an `_` pattern and the fully empty range `..` as a `..`
+pattern. No corresponding assignments are generated. For example:
+
+```rust
+let mut a;
+(a, _) = (3, 4);
+(.., a) = (1, 2, 3, 4);
+
+// desugars to:
+
+{
+    let (_a, _) = (3, 4);
+    a = _a;
+}
+
+{
+    let (.., _a) = (1, 2, 3, 4);
+    a = _a;
+}
+```
+
+and similarly for slices and structs.
+
+## Unsupported patterns
+
+We do not support the following "patterns" in destructuring assignment:
+
+- `&x = foo();`.
+- `&mut x = foo();`.
+- `ref x = foo();`.
+- `x @ y = foo()`.
+- (`box` patterns, which are deprecated.)
+
+This is primarily for learnability: the behaviour of `&` can already be slightly confusing to
+newcomers, as it has different meanings depending on whether it is used in an expression or pattern.
+In destructuring assignment, the left-hand side of an assignment consists of sub*expressions*, but
+which act intuitively like patterns, so it is not clear what `&` and friends should mean. We feel it
+is more confusing than helpful to allow these cases. Similarly, although coming up with a sensible
+meaning for `@`-bindings in destructuring assignment is not inconceivable, we believe they would be
+confusing at best in this context. Conversely, destructuring tuples, slices or structs is very
+natural and we do not foresee confusion with allowing these.
+
+Our implementation is forwards-compatible with allowing these patterns in destructuring assigmnent,
+in any case, so we lose nothing by not allowing them from the start.
+
+Additionally, we do not give analogues for any of the following, which make little sense in this
+context:
+
+- Literal patterns.
+- Range patterns.
+- Or patterns.
+
+## Compound destructuring assignment
+
+We forbid destructuring compound assignment, i.e. destructuring for operators like `+=`, `*=` and so
+on. This is both for the sake of simplicity and since there are relevant design questions that do not have obvious answers,
+e.g. how this could interact with custom implementations of the operators.
+
+## Order-of-assignment
+
+The right-hand side of the assignment is always evaluated first. Then, assignments are performed
+left-to-right. Note that component expressions in the left-hand side may be complex, and not simply
+identifiers.
+
+In a declaration, each identifier may be bound at most once. That is, the following is invalid:
+
+```rust
+let (a, a) = (1, 2);
+```
+
+For destructuring assignments, we currently permit assignments containing identical identifiers. However, these trigger an "unused assignment"
+warning.
+
+```rust
+(a, a) = (1, 2); // warning: value assigned to `a` is never read
+assert_eq!(a, 2);
+```
+
+We could try to explicitly forbid this. However, the chosen behaviour is justified in two ways:
+- A destructuring
+assignment can always be written as a series of assignments, so this behaviour matches its
+expansion.
+- In general, we are not able to tell when overlapping
+assignments are made, so the error would be fallible. This is illustrated by the following example:
+
+```rust
+fn foo<'a>(x: &'a mut u32) -> &'a mut u32 {
+    x
+}
+
+fn main() {
+    let mut x: u32 = 10;
+    // We cannot tell that the same variable is being assigned to
+    // in this instance.
+    (*foo(&mut x), *foo(&mut x)) = (5, 6);
+    assert_eq!(x, 6);
+}
+```
+
+We thus feel that a lint is more appropriate.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+- It could be argued that this feature increases the surface area of the language and thus
+  complexity. However, we feel that by decreasing surprise, it actually makes the language less
+  complex for users.
+- It is possible that these changes could result in some confusing diagnostics. However, we have not
+  found any during testing, and these could in any case be ironed out before stabilisation.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+As we argue above, we believe this change increases the perceived consistency of Rust and improves
+idiomatic code in the presence of mutability, and that the
+implementation is simple and intuitive.
+
+One potential alternative that has been put forth in the past is to allow arbitrary patterns on the
+left-hand side of an assignment, but as discussed above and [extensively in this
+thread](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372), it is difficult to see how this could work in
+practice (especially with complex left-hand sides that do not simply involve identifiers) and it is
+not clear that this would have any advantages.
+
+Another suggested alternative is to introduce a new keyword for indicating an assignment to an
+existing expression during a `let` variable declaration. For example, something like the following:
+
+```rust
+let (a, reassign b) = expr;
+```
+
+This has the advantage that we can reuse the existing infrastructure for patterns. However, it has
+the following disadvantages, which we believe make it less suitable than our proposal:
+
+- It requires a new keyword or overloading an existing one, both of which have syntactic and
+  semantic overhead.
+- It is something that needs to be learnt by users: conversely, we maintain that it is natural to
+  attempt destructuring assignment with the syntax we propose already, so does not need to be
+  learnt.
+- It changes the meaning of `let` (which has previously been associated only with binding new
+  variables).
+- To be consistent, we ought to allow `let reassign x = value;`, which introduces another way
+  to simply write `x = value;`.
+- It is longer and no more readable than the proposed syntax.
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+The most persuasive prior art is Rust itself, which already permits destructuring declarations.
+Intuitively, a declaration is an assignment that also introduces a new binding. Therefore, it seems
+clear that assignments should act similarly to declarations where possible. However, it is also the
+case that destructuring assignments are present in many languages that permit destructuring
+declarations.
+
+- JavaScript
+[supports destructuring assignment](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Destructuring_assignment).
+- Python [supports destructuring assignment](https://blog.tecladocode.com/destructuring-in-python/).
+- Perl
+[supports destructuring assignment](https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/day-5-destructure-your-arguments-with-perl-6-signatures/).
+- And so on...
+
+It is a general pattern that languages support destructuring assignment when they support
+destructuring declarations.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+None.
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+- The implementation already supports destructuring of every class of expressions that currently
+  make sense in Rust. This feature naturally should be extended to any new class of expressions for
+  which it makes sense.
+- It could make sense to permit [destructuring compound
+  assignments](#Compound-destructuring-assignment) in the future, though we defer this question for
+  later discussions.
+- It could make sense to permit [`ref` and `&`](#Unsupported-patterns) in the future.
+- It [has been suggested](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372#issuecomment-365606878) that
+  mixed declarations and assignments could be permitted, as in the following:
+
+```rust
+let a;
+(a, let b) = (1, 2);
+assert_eq!((a, b), (1, 2));
+```
+
+We do not pursue this here, but note that it would be compatible with our desugaring.