Stabilize #![feature(slice_patterns)] in 1.42.0

[Centril]

Stabilization report

The following is the stabilization report for #![feature(slice_patterns)].
This report is the collaborative effort of @matthewjasper and @Centril.

Tracking issue: #62254
Version target: 1.42 (2020-01-30 => beta, 2020-03-12 => stable).

Backstory: slice patterns

It is already possible to use slice patterns on stable Rust to match on arrays and slices. For example, to match on a slice, you may write:

fn foo(slice: &[&str]) {
    match slice {
        [] => { dbg!() }
        [a] => { dbg!(a); }
        [a, b] => { dbg!(a, b); }
        _ => {}
    //  ^ Fallback -- necessary because the length is unknown!
    }
}

To match on an array, you may instead write:

fn bar([a, b, c]: [u8; 3]) {}
//     --------- Length is known, so pattern is irrefutable.

However, on stable Rust, it is not yet possible to match on a subslice or subarray.

A quick user guide: Subslice patterns

The ability to match on a subslice or subarray is gated under #![feature(slice_patterns)] and is what is proposed for stabilization here.

The syntax of subslice patterns

Subslice / subarray patterns come in two flavors syntactically.

Common to both flavors is they use the token .., referred as a "rest pattern" in a pattern context. This rest pattern functions as a variable-length pattern, matching whatever amount of elements that haven't been matched already before and after.

When .. is used syntactically as an element of a slice-pattern, either directly (1), or as part of a binding pattern (2), it becomes a subslice pattern.

On stable Rust, a rest pattern .. can also be used in a tuple or tuple-struct pattern with let (x, ..) = (1, 2, 3); and let TS(x, ..) = TS(1, 2, 3); respectively.

(1) Matching on a subslice without binding it

fn base(string: &str) -> u8 {
    match string.as_bytes() {
        [b'0', b'x', ..] => 16,
        [b'0', b'o', ..] => 8,
        [b'0', b'b', ..] => 2,
        _ => 10,
    }
}

fn main() {
    assert_eq!(base("0xFF"), 16);
    assert_eq!(base("0x"), 16);
}

In the function base, the pattern [b'0', b'x', ..] will match on any byte-string slice with the prefix 0x. Note that .. may match on nothing, so 0x is a valid match.

(2) Binding a subslice:

fn main() {
    #[derive(PartialEq, Debug)]
    struct X(u8);
    let xs: Vec<X> = vec![X(0), X(1), X(2)];

    if let [start @ .., end] = &*xs {
        //              --- bind on last element, assuming there is one.
        //  ---------- bind the initial elements, if there are any.
        assert_eq!(start, &[X(0), X(1)] as &[X]);
        assert_eq!(end, &X(2));
        let _: &[X] = start;
        let _: &X = end;
    }
}

In this case, [start @ .., end] will match any non-empty slice, binding the last element to end and any elements before that to start. Note in particular that, as above, start may match on the empty slice.

Only one .. per slice pattern

In today's stable Rust, a tuple (struct) pattern (a, b, c) can only have one subtuple pattern (e.g., (a, .., c)). That is, if there is a rest pattern, it may only occur once. Any .. that follow, as in e.g., (a, .., b, ..) will cause an error, as there is no way for the compiler to know what b applies to. This rule also applies to slice patterns. That is, you may also not write [a, .., b, ..].

Motivation

Slice patterns provide a natural and efficient way to pattern match on slices and arrays. This is particularly useful as slices and arrays are quite a common occurence in modern software targeting modern hardware. However, as aforementioned, it's not yet possible to perform incomplete matches, which is seen in fn base, an example taken from the rustc codebase itself. This is where subslice patterns come in and extend slice patterns with the natural syntax xs @ .. and .., where the latter is already used for tuples and tuple structs. As an example of how subslice patterns can be used to clean up code, we have PR #67569. In this PR, slice patterns enabled us to improve readability and reduce unsafety, at no loss to performance.

Technical specification

Grammar

The following specification is a sub-set of the grammar necessary to explain what interests us here. Note that stabilizing subslice patterns does not alter the stable grammar. The stabilization contains purely semantic changes.

Binding = reference:"ref"? mutable:"mut"? name:IDENT;

Pat =
  | ... // elided
  | Rest: ".."
  | Binding:{ binding:Binding { "@" subpat:Pat }? }
  | Slice:{ "[" elems:Pat* %% "," "]" }
  | Paren:{ "(" pat:Pat ")" }
  | Tuple:{ path:Path? "(" elems:Pat* &% "," ")" }
  ;

Notes:

1. (..) is interpreted as a Tuple, not a Paren.
   This means that [a, (..)] is interpreted as Slice[Binding(a), Tuple[Rest]] and not Slice[Binding(a), Paren(Rest)].

Name resolution

A slice pattern is resolved as a product context and .. is given no special treatment.

Abstract syntax of slice patterns

The abstract syntax (HIR level) is defined like so:

enum PatKind {
    ... // Other unimportant stuff.
    Wild,
    Binding {
        binding: Binding,
        subpat: Option<Pat>,
    },
    Slice {
        before: List<Pat>,
        slice: Option<Pat>,
        after: List<Pat>,
    },
}

The executable definition is found in hir::PatKind.

Lowering to abstract syntax

Lowering a slice pattern to its abstract syntax proceeds by:

1. Lowering each element pattern of the slice pattern, where:

   1. .. is lowered to _,
      recording that it was a subslice pattern,

   2. binding @ .. is lowered to binding @ _,
      recording that it was a subslice pattern,

   3. and all other patterns are lowered as normal,
      recording that it was not a subslice pattern.

2. Taking all lowered elements until the first subslice pattern.

3. Take all following elements.

   If there are any,

   1. The head is the sub-slice pattern.
   2. The tail (after) must not contain a subslice pattern,
      or an error occurs.

The full executable definition can be found in LoweringContext::lower_pat_slice.

Type checking slice patterns

Default binding modes

A slice pattern is a non-reference pattern as defined in is_non_ref_pat. This means that when type checking a slice pattern, as many immediate reference types are peeled off from the expected type as possible and the default binding mode is adjusted to by-reference before checking the slice pattern. See #63118 for an algorithmic description.

See RFC 2359's guide-level explanation and the tests listed below for examples of what effect this has.

Checking the pattern

Type checking a slice pattern proceeds as follows:

1. Resolve any type variables by a single level.
   If the result still is a type variable, error.

2. Determine the expected type for any subslice pattern (slice_ty) and for elements (inner_ty) depending on the expected type.

   1. If the expected type is an array ([E; N]):

      1. Evaluate the length of the array.
         If the length couldn't be evaluated, error.
         This may occur when we have e.g., const N: usize.
         Now N is known.

      2. If there is no sub-slice pattern,
         check len(before) == N,
         and otherwise error.

      3. Otherwise,
         set S = N - len(before) - len(after),
         and check N >= 0 and otherwise error.
         Set slice_ty = [E; S].

      Set inner_ty = E.

   2. If the expected type is a slice ([E]),
      set inner_ty = E and slice_ty = [E].

   3. Otherwise, error.

3. Check each element in before and after against inner_ty.

4. If it exists, check slice against slice_ty.

For an executable definition, see check_pat_slice.

Typed abstract syntax of slice and array patterns

The typed abstract syntax (HAIR level) is defined like so:

enum PatKind {
    ... // Other unimportant stuff.
    Wild,
    Binding {
        ... // Elided.
    }
    Slice {
        prefix: List<Pat>,
        slice: Option<Pat>,
        suffix: List<Pat>,
    },
    Array {
        prefix: List<Pat>,
        slice: Option<Pat>,
        suffix: List<Pat>,
    },
}

The executable definition is found in hair::pattern::PatKind.

Lowering to typed abstract syntax

Lowering a slice pattern to its typed abstract syntax proceeds by:

1. Lowering each pattern in before into prefix.
2. Lowering the slice, if it exists, into slice.
   1. A Wild pattern in abstract syntax is lowered to Wild.
   2. A Binding pattern in abstract syntax is lowered to Binding { .. }.
3. Lowering each pattern in after into after.
4. If the type is [E; N], construct PatKind::Array { prefix, slice, after }, otherwise PatKind::Slice { prefix, slice, after }.

The executable definition is found in PatCtxt::slice_or_array_pattern.

Exhaustiveness checking

Let E be the element type of a slice or array.

• For array types, [E; N] with a known length N, the full set of constructors required for an exahustive match is the sequence ctors(E)^N where ctors denotes the constructors required for an exhaustive match of E.

• Otherwise, for slice types [E], or for an array type with an unknown length [E; ?L], the full set of constructors is the infinite sequence ⋃_i=0^∞ ctors(E)^i. This entails that an exhaustive match without a cover-all pattern (e.g. _ or binding) or a subslice pattern (e.g., [..] or [_, _, ..]) is impossible.

• PatKind::{Slice, Array}(prefix, None, suffix @ []) cover a sequence of of len(prefix) covered by patterns. Note that suffix.len() > 0 with slice == None is unrepresentable.

• PatKind::{Slice, Array}(prefix, Some(s), suffix) cover a sequence with prefix as the start and suffix as the end and where len(prefix) + len(suffix) <= len(sequence). The .. in the middle is interpreted as an unbounded number of _s in terms of exhaustiveness checking.

MIR representation

The relevant MIR representation for the lowering into MIR, which is discussed in the next section, includes:

enum Rvalue {
    // ...
    /// The length of a `[X]` or `[X; N]` value.
    Len(Place),
}

struct Place {
    base: PlaceBase,
    projection: List<PlaceElem>,
}

enum ProjectionElem {
    // ...
    ConstantIndex {
        offset: Nat,
        min_length: Nat,
        from_end: bool,
    },
    Subslice {
        from: Nat,
        to: Nat,
        from_end: bool,
    },
}

Lowering to MIR

• For a slice pattern matching a slice, where the pattern has N elements specified, there is a check that the Rvalue::Len of the slice is at least N to decide if the pattern can match.

• There are two kinds of ProjectionElem used for slice patterns:

  1. ProjectionElem::ConstantIndex is an array or slice element with a known index. As a shorthand it's written base[offset of min_length] if from_end is false and base[-offset of min_length] if from_end is true. base[-offset of min_length] is the len(base) - offsetth element of base.

  2. ProjectionElem::Subslice is a subslice of an array or slice with known bounds. As a shorthand it's written base[from..to] if from_end is false and base[from:-to] if from_end is true. base[from:-to] is the subslice base[from..len(base) - to].

  • Note that ProjectionElem::Index is used for indexing expressions, but not for slice patterns. It's written base[idx].

• When binding an array pattern, any individual element binding is lowered to an assignment or borrow of base[offset of len] where offset is the element's index in the array and len is the array's length.

• When binding a slice pattern, let N be the number of elements that have patterns. Elements before the subslice pattern (prefix) are lowered to base[offset of N] where offset is the element's index from the start. Elements after the subslice pattern (suffix) are lowered to base[-offset of N] where offset is the element's index from the end, plus 1.

• Subslices of arrays are lowered to base[from..to] where from is the number of elements before the subslice pattern and to = len(array) - len(suffix) is the length of the array minus the number of elements after the subslice pattern.

• Subslices of slices are lowered to base[from:-to] where from is the number of elements before the subslice pattern (len(prefix)) and to is the number of elements after the subslice pattern (len(suffix)).

Safety and const checking

• Subslice patterns do not introduce any new unsafe operations.

• As subslice patterns for arrays are irrefutable, they are allowed in const contexts. As are [..] and [ref y @ ..] patterns for slices. However, ref mut bindings are only allowed with feature(const_mut_refs) for now.

• As other subslice patterns for slices require a match, if let, or while let, they are only allowed with feature(const_if_match, const_fn) for now.

• Subslice patterns may occur in promoted constants.

Borrow and move checking

• A subslice pattern can be moved from if it has an array type [E; N] and the parent array can be moved from.

• Moving from an array subslice pattern moves from all of the elements of the array within the subslice.

  • If the subslice contains at least one element, this means that dynamic indexing (arr[idx]) is no longer allowed on the array.

  • The array can be reinitialized and can still be matched with another slice pattern that uses a disjoint set of elements.

• A subslice pattern can be mutably borrowed if the parent array/slice can be mutably borrowed.

• When determining whether an access conflicts with a borrow and at least one is a slice pattern:

  • x[from..to] always conflicts with x and x[idx] (where idx is a variable).

  • x[from..to] conflicts with x[idx of len] if from <= idx and idx < to (that is, idx ∈ from..to).

  • x[from..to] conflicts with x[from2..to2] if from < to2 and from2 < to (that is, (from..to) ∩ (from2..to2) ≠ ∅).

  • x[from:-to] always conflicts with x, x[idx], and x[from2:-to2].

  • x[from:-to] conflicts with x[idx of len] if from <= idx.

  • x[from:-to] conflicts with x[-idx of len] if to < idx.

• A constant index from the end conflicts with other elements as follows:

  • x[-idx of len] always conflicts with x and x[idx].

  • x[-idx of len] conflicts with x[-idx2 of len2] if idx == idx2.

  • x[-idx of len] conflicts with x[idx2 of len2] if idx + idx2 >= max(len, len2).

Tests

The tests can be primarily seen in the PR itself. Here are some of them:

Parsing (3)

• Testing that .. patterns are syntactically allowed in all pattern contexts (2)

  • pattern/rest-pat-syntactic.rs
  • ignore-all-the-things.rs

• Slice patterns allow a trailing comma, including after .. (1)

  • trailing-comma.rs

Lowering (2)

• @ .. isn't allowed outside of slice patterns and only allowed once in each pattern (1)

  • pattern/rest-pat-semantic-disallowed.rs

• Mulitple .. patterns are not allowed (1)

  • parser/match-vec-invalid.rs

Type checking (5)

• Default binding modes apply to slice patterns (2)

  • rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs
  • rfcs/rfc-2005-default-binding-mode/slice.rs

• Array patterns cannot have more elements in the pattern than in the array (2)

  • match/match-vec-mismatch.rs
  • error-codes/E0528.rs

• Array subslice patterns have array types (1)

  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-pass.rs

Exhaustiveness and usefulness checking (20)

• Large subslice matches don't stack-overflow the exhaustiveness checker (1)

  • pattern/issue-53820-slice-pattern-large-array.rs

• Array patterns with subslices are irrefutable (1)

  • issues/issue-7784.rs

• [xs @ ..] slice patterns are irrefutable (1)

  • binding/irrefutable-slice-patterns.rs

• Subslice patterns can match zero-length slices (2)

  • issues/issue-15080.rs
  • issues/issue-15104.rs

• General tests (13)

  • issues/issue-12369.rs
  • issues/issue-37598.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/match-vec-unreachable.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/non-exhaustive-match.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/non-exhaustive-match-nested.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/non-exhaustive-pattern-witness.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/65413-constants-and-slices-exhaustiveness.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/match-byte-array-patterns.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/match-slice-patterns.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/slice-patterns-exhaustiveness.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/slice-patterns-irrefutable.rs
  • pattern/usefulness/slice-patterns-reachability.rs
  • uninhabited/uninhabited-patterns.rs

• Interactions with or-patterns (2)

  • or-patterns/exhaustiveness-pass.rs
  • or-patterns/exhaustiveness-unreachable-pattern.rs

Borrow checking (28)

• Slice patterns can only move from owned, fixed-length arrays (4)

  • borrowck/borrowck-move-out-of-vec-tail.rs
  • moves/move-out-of-slice-2.rs
  • moves/move-out-of-array-ref.rs
  • issues/issue-12567.rs

• Moves from arrays are tracked by element (2)

  • borrowck/borrowck-move-out-from-array-no-overlap.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-move-out-from-array-use-no-overlap.rs

• Slice patterns cannot be used on moved-from slices/arrays (2)

  • borrowck/borrowck-move-out-from-array.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-move-out-from-array-use.rs

• Slice patterns cannot be used with conflicting borrows (3)

  • borrowck/borrowck-describe-lvalue.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-array.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-slice.rs

• Borrows from slice patterns are tracked and only conflict when there is possible overlap (6)

  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-array-no-overlap.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-slice-no-overlap.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-rpass.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-vec-pattern-element-loan.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-vec-pattern-loan-from-mut.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-vec-pattern-tail-element-loan.rs

• Slice patterns affect indexing expressions (1)

  • borrowck/borrowck-vec-pattern-move-tail.rs

• Borrow and move interactions with box patterns (1)

  • borrowck/borrowck-vec-pattern-move-tail.rs

• Slice patterns correctly affect inference of closure captures (2)

  • borrowck/borrowck-closures-slice-patterns.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-closures-slice-patterns-ok.rs

• Interactions with #![feature(bindings_after_at)] (7)

  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-move-and-move.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-at-and-box-pass.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-at-and-box.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-by-copy-bindings-in-at.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-ref-both-sides.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-ref-mut-and-ref.rs
  • pattern/bindings-after-at/borrowck-pat-ref-mut-twice.rs

• Misc (1)

  • issues/issue-26619.rs

MIR lowering (1)

• uniform_array_move_out.rs

Evaluation (19)

• Slice patterns don't cause leaks or double drops (2)

  • drop/dynamic-drop.rs
  • drop/dynamic-drop-async.rs

• General run-pass tests (10)

  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-pass.rs
  • array-slice-vec/vec-matching-fixed.rs
  • array-slice-vec/vec-matching-fold.rs
  • array-slice-vec/vec-matching-legal-tail-element-borrow.rs
  • array-slice-vec/vec-matching.rs
  • array-slice-vec/vec-tail-matching.rs
  • binding/irrefutable-slice-patterns.rs
  • binding/match-byte-array-patterns.rs
  • binding/match-vec-alternatives.rs
  • borrowck/borrowck-slice-pattern-element-loan-rpass.rs

• Matching a large by-value array (1)

  • issues/issue-17877.rs

• Uninhabited elements (1)

  • binding/empty-types-in-patterns.rs

• Zero-sized elements (3)

  • binding/zero_sized_subslice_match.rs
  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-const-eval.rs
  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-const-eval-match.rs

• Evaluation in const contexts (2)

  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-const-eval.rs
  • array-slice-vec/subslice-patterns-const-eval-match.rs

Misc (1)

• Exercising a case where const-prop cased an ICE (1)
  • consts/const_prop_slice_pat_ice.rs

History

• 2012-12-08, commit 1968cb3
  Author: Jakub Wieczorek
  Reviewers: @graydon

  This is where slice patterns were first implemented. It is particularly instructive to read the vec-tail-matching.rs test.

• 2013-08-20, issue Matches on &mut[] move the .. match & don't consider disjointness #8636
  Author: @huonw
  Fixed by @mikhail-m1 in fix for issue #8636 #51894

  The issue describes a problem wherein the borrow-checker would not consider disjointness when checking mutable references in slice patterns.

• 2014-09-03, RFC Add RFC to feature gate some slice patterns rfcs#164
  Author: @brson
  Reviewers: The Core Team

  The RFC decided to feature gate slice patterns due to concerns over lack of oversight and the exhaustiveness checking logic not having seen much love. Since then, the exhaustivenss checking algorithm, in particular for slice patterns, has been substantially refactored and tests have been added.

• 2014-09-03, RFC RFC: Change syntax of subslice matching rfcs#202
  Author: @krdln
  Reviewers: The Core Team

  Change syntax of subslices matching from ..xs to xs.. to be more consistent with the rest of the language and allow future backwards compatible improvements.

  In 2019, RFC: Finalize syntax for slice patterns with subslices rfcs#2359 changed the syntax again in favor of .. and xs @ ...

• 2014-09-08, PR librustc: Feature gate subslice matching in non-tail positions. #17052
  Author: @pcwalton
  Reviewers: @alexcrichton and @sfackler

  This implemented the feature gating as specified in Add RFC to feature gate some slice patterns rfcs#164.

• 2015-03-06, RFC RFC: Array pattern adjustments rfcs#495
  Author: @P1start
  Reviewers: The Core Team

  The RFC changed array and slice patterns like so:

  • Made them only match on arrays ([T; N]) and slice types ([T]), not references to slice types (& mut? [T]).
  • Made subslice matching yield a value of type [T; N] or [T], not & mut? [T].
  • Allowed multiple mutable references to be made to different parts of the same array or slice in array patterns.

  These changes were made to fit with the introduction of DSTs like [T] as well as with e.g. box [a, b, c] (Box<[T]>) in the future. All points remain true today, in particular with the advent of default binding modes.

• 2015-03-22, PR Fix binding unsized expressions to ref patterns #23361
  Author: @petrochenkov
  Reviewers: Unknown

  The PR adjusted codegen ("trans") such that let ref a = *"abcdef" would no longer ICE, paving the way for RFC: Array pattern adjustments rfcs#495.

• 2015-05-28, PR Feature gate *all* slice patterns. #23121 #23794
  Author: @brson
  Reviewers: @nrc

  The PR feature gated slice patterns in more contexts.

• 2016-06-09, PR Implement RFC495 semantics for slice patterns #32202
  Author: @arielb1
  Reviewers: @eddyb and @nikomatsakis

  This implemented RFC RFC: Array pattern adjustments rfcs#495 via a MIR based implementation fixing some bugs.

• 2016-09-16, PR a few move-checker improvements #36353
  Author: @arielb1
  Reviewers: @nagisa, @pnkfelix, and @nikomatsakis

  The PR made move-checker improvements prohibiting moves out of slices.

• 2018-02-17, PR add transform for uniform array move out #47926
  Author: @mikhail-m1
  Reviewers: @nikomatsakis

  This added the UniformArrayMoveOut which converted move-out-from-array by Subslice and ConstIndex {.., from_end: true } to ConstIndex move out(s) from the beginning of the array. This fixed some problems with the MIR borrow-checker and drop-elaboration of arrays.

  Unfortunately, the transformation ultimately proved insufficient for soundness and was removed and replaced in Remove uniform array move MIR passes #66650.

• 2018-02-19, PR restore Subslice move out from array after elaborate drops and borrowck #48355
  Author: @mikhail-m1
  Reviewers: @nikomatsakis

  After add transform for uniform array move out #47926, this restored some MIR optimizations after drop-elaboration and borrow-checking.

• 2018-03-20, PR Stabilize slice patterns without .. #48516
  Author: @petrochenkov
  Reviewers: @nikomatsakis

  This stabilized fixed length slice patterns [a, b, c] without variable length subslices and moved subslice patterns into #![feature(slice_patterns). See Stabilize fixed-length slice patterns (excluding ..) #48836 wherein the language team accepted the proposal to stabilize.

• 2018-07-06, PR fix for issue #8636 #51894
  Author: @mikhail-m1
  Reviewers: @nikomatsakis

  Matches on &mut[] move the .. match & don't consider disjointness #8636 was fixed such that the borrow-checker would consider disjointness with respect to mutable references in slice patterns.

• 2019-06-30, RFC RFC: Finalize syntax for slice patterns with subslices rfcs#2359
  Author: @petrochenkov
  Reviewers: The Language Team

  The RFC switched the syntax of subslice patterns to {$binding @}? .. as opposed to .. $pat? (which was what the RFC originally proposed). This RFC reignited the work towards finishing the implementation and the testing of slice patterns which eventually lead to this stabilization proposal.

• 2019-06-30, RFC Mini-RFC: Make .. a pattern syntactically rfcs#2707
  Author: @petrochenkov
  Reviewers: The Language Team

  This RFC built upon RFC: Finalize syntax for slice patterns with subslices rfcs#2359 turning .. into a full-fledged pattern (Pat |= Rest:".." ;), as opposed to a special part of slice and tuple patterns, moving previously syntactic restrictions into semantic ones.

• 2019-07-03, PR Switch tracking issue for #![feature(slice_patterns)] #62255
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @varkor

  This closed the old tracking issue (Tracking issue for RFC #495 (features slice_patterns and advanced_slice_patterns) #23121) in favor of the new one (Tracking issue for #![feature(slice_patterns)] #62254) due to the new RFCs having been accepted.

• 2019-07-28, PR Implement RFC 2707 + Parser recovery for range patterns #62550
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @petrochenkov and @eddyb

  Implemented RFCs Mini-RFC: Make .. a pattern syntactically rfcs#2707 and RFC: Finalize syntax for slice patterns with subslices rfcs#2359 by introducing the .. syntactic rest pattern form as well as changing the lowering to subslice and subtuple patterns and the necessary semantic restrictions as per the RFCs.

  Moreover, the parser was cleaned up to use a more generic framework for parsing sequences of things. This framework was employed in parsing slice patterns.

  Finally, the PR introduced parser recovery for half-open ranges (e.g., ..X, ..=X, and X..), demonstrating in practice that the RFCs proposed syntax will enable half-open ranges if we want to add those (which is done in Introduce X.., ..X, and ..=X range patterns #67258).

• 2019-07-30, PR Add syntactic and semantic tests for rest patterns, i.e. .. #63111
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @estebank

  Added a test which comprehensively exercised the parsing of .. rest patterns. That is, the PR exercised the specification in Mini-RFC: Make .. a pattern syntactically rfcs#2707. Moreover, a test was added for the semantic restrictions noted in the RFC.

• 2019-07-31, PR Subslice patterns: Test passing static & dynamic semantics. #63129
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @oli-obk

  Hardened the test-suite for subslice and subarray patterns with a run-pass tests. This test exercises both type checking and dynamic semantics.

• 2019-09-15, PR Parse .. as a full pattern rust-analyzer#1848
  Author: @ecstatic-morse
  Reviewers: @matklad

  This implemented the syntactic change (rest patterns, ..) in rust-analyzer.

• 2019-11-05, PR Clarify pattern-matching usefulness algorithm #65874
  Author: @Nadrieril
  Reviewers: @varkor, @arielb1, and @Centril

  Usefulness / exhaustiveness checking saw a major refactoring clarifying the analysis by emphasizing that each row of the matrix can be seen as a sort of stack from which we pop constructors.

• 2019-11-12, PR Refactor slice pattern usefulness checking #66129
  Author: @Nadrieril
  Reviewers: @varkor, @Centril, and @estebank

  Usefulness / exhaustiveness checking of slice patterns were refactored in favor of clearer code. Before the PR, variable-length slice patterns were eagerly expanded into a union of fixed-length slices. They now have their own special constructor, which allows expanding them more lazily. As a side-effect, this improved diagnostics. Moreover, the test suite for exhaustiveness checking of slice patterns was hardened.

• 2019-11-20, PR Fix #53820 #66497
  Author: @Nadrieril
  Reviewers: @varkor and @Centril

  Building on the previous PR, this one fixed a bug Stack overflow compiling slice pattern for big array #53820 wherein sufficiently large subarray patterns (match [0u8; 16*1024] { [..] => {}}) would result in crashing the compiler with a stack-overflow. The PR did this by treating array patterns in a more first-class way (using a variable-length mechanism also used for slices) rather than like large tuples. This also had the effect of improving diagnostics for non-exhaustive matches.

• 2019-11-28, PR Fix #65413 #66603
  Author: @Nadrieril
  Reviewers: @varkor

  Fixed a bug Constants, slice patterns, and exhaustiveness interact in suboptimal ways #65413 wherein constants, slice patterns, and exhaustiveness checking interacted in a suboptimal way conspiring to suggest that a reachable arm was in fact unreachable.

• 2019-12-12, PR Remove uniform array move MIR passes #66650
  Author: @matthewjasper
  Reviewers: @pnkfelix and @Centril

  Removed the UniformArrayMoveOut MIR transformation pass in favor of baking the necessary logic into the borrow-checker, drop elaboration and MIR building itself. This fixed a number of bugs, including a soundness hole Slice/Array patterns are not correctly move checked #66502. Moreover, the PR added a slew of tests for borrow- and move-checking of slice patterns as well as a test for the dynamic semantics of dropping subslice patterns.

• 2019-12-16, PR Improve typeck & lowering docs for slice patterns #67318
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @matthewjasper

  Improved documentation for AST->HIR lowering + type checking of slice as well as minor code simplification.

• 2019-12-21, PR Test slice patterns more #67467
  Author: @matthewjasper
  Reviewers: @oli-obk, @RalfJung, and @Centril

  Fixed bugs in the const evaluation of slice patterns and added tests for const evaluation as well as borrow- and move-checking.

• 2019-12-22, PR Cleanup lower_pattern_unadjusted & Improve slice pat typeck #67439
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @matthewjasper

  Cleaned up HAIR lowering of slice patterns, removing special cased dead code for the unrepresentable [a, b] @ ... The PR also refactored type checking for slice patterns.

• 2019-12-23, PR Fix ICE in mir interpretation #67546
  Author: @oli-obk
  Reviewers: @varkor and @RalfJung

  Fixed an ICE in the MIR interpretation of slice patterns.

• 2019-12-24, PR Initial implementation of #![feature(bindings_after_at)] #66296
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @pnkfelix and @matthewjasper

  This implemented #![feature(bindings_after_at)] which allows writing e.g. a @ Some([_, b @ ..]). This is not directly linked to slice patterns other than with patterns in general. However, the combination of the feature and slice_patterns received some testing in the PR.

• 2020-01-09, PR slice patterns: harden match-based borrowck tests #67990
  Author: @Centril
  Reviewers: @matthewjasper

  This hardened move-checker tests for match expressions in relation to [nll] _ patterns should not count as borrows #53114.

• This PR stabilizes slice_patterns.

Related / possible future work

There is on-going work to improve pattern matching in other ways (the relevance of some of these are indirect, and only by composition):

• OR-patterns, pat_0 | .. | pat_n is almost implemented.
  Tracking issue: Tracking issue for RFC 2535, 2530, 2175, "Or patterns, i.e Foo(Bar(x) | Baz(x))" #54883

• Bindings after @, e.g., x @ Some(y) is implemented.
  Tracking issue: Tracking issue for bindings in sub-patterns after @s (feature(bindings_after_at)) #65490

• Half-open range patterns, e.g., X.., ..X, and ..=X as well as exclusive range patterns, e.g., X..Y.
  Tracking issue: Tracking issue for ..X, and ..=X (#![feature(half_open_range_patterns)]) #67264 and Tracking issue for exclusive range patterns #37854
  The relevance here is that this work demonstrates, in practice, that there are no syntactic conflicts introduced by the stabilization of subslice patterns.

As for more direct improvements to slice patterns, some avenues could be:

• Box patterns, e.g., box [a, b, .., c] to match on Box<[T]>.
  Tracking issue: Tracking issue for box_patterns feature #29641
  This issue currently has no path to stabilization.

  Note that it is currently possible to match on Box<[T]> or Vec<T> by first dereferencing them to slices.

• DerefPure, which would allow e.g., using slice patterns to match on Vec<T> (e.g., moving out of it).

Another idea which was raised by RFC 2707 and RFC 2359 was to allow binding a subtuple pattern. That is, we could allow (a, xs @ .., b). However, while we could allow by-value bindings to .. as in xs @ .. at zero cost, the same cannot be said of by-reference bindings, e.g. (a, ref xs @ .., b). The issue here becomes that for a reference to be legal, we have to represent xs contiguously in memory. In effect, we are forced into a HList based representation for tuples.

[Centril]

Stabilization proposal

Dear community & language team,
I propose that we stabilize #![feature(slice_patterns)].

@rfcbot merge

Tracking issue: #62254
Version target: 1.42 (2020-01-30 => beta, 2020-03-12 => stable).

Please see the attached report above for details.

[rfcbot]

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

• @Centril
• @cramertj
• @eddyb
• @joshtriplett
• @nikomatsakis
• @pnkfelix
• @scottmcm
• @withoutboats

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!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[brson]

Incredible PR OP. Thanks @matthewjasper and @Centril.

[SimonSapin]

This looks great! Thanks for everyone’s work on the implementation and on such a detailed report.

The tail (after) must not contain a subslice pattern, or an error occurs.

This answers a question I had when reading "A quick user guide": no more than one rest pattern may be used in a given slice pattern or array pattern. This would be worth pointing out in high-level documentation for this feature. Do we have such docs or is The Reference the closest?

On stable Rust, a rest pattern .. can also be used in a tuple or tuple-struct pattern with let (x, ..) = (1, 2, 3); and let TS(x, ..) = TS(1, 2, 3); respectively.

One could imagine bindings for such rest patterns that create a smaller tuple: let (x, y @ ..) = (1, 2, 3); assert_eq!(y, (2, 3)) but that is not supported or planned, right?

Is .. in a struct pattern not called a rest pattern? StructName { field_name: pat, .. }

This entails that an exhaustive match without a cover-all pattern (e.g. _, binding, [..]) is impossible.

Taking this literally suggests that a single pattern that matches any slice is mandatory, and this example would fail exhaustiveness checking:

match some_slice: &[T] {
    &[] => "zero",
    &[_a] => "one",
    &[_a, _b] => "two",
    &[_a, _b, _c, ..] => "many",
}

Is that the case, or is the compiler able to reason about the union of matched slice lengths? If the latter, I think “an exhaustive match without a rest pattern is impossible” would be more correct.

[Centril]

This answers a question I had when reading "A quick user guide": no more than one rest pattern may be used in a given slice pattern or array pattern. This would be worth pointing out in high-level documentation for this feature. Do we have such docs or is The Reference the closest?

I've added a short section to the user-guide part of the report. :) The reference only documents stable Rust, and so it will need to be updated with some of the contents from this report.

One could imagine bindings for such rest patterns that create a smaller tuple: let (x, y @ ..) = (1, 2, 3); assert_eq!(y, (2, 3)) but that is not supported or planned, right?

Heh... I managed to forget this one in the "Related future work". I've added it now. That said, supporting (x, y @ ..) is not currently planned. It should be feasible to support it for by-value bindings, but once you have e.g. (x, ref y @ ..) it becomes a problem in terms of constraining layout optimizations of tuples and you'll need to make trade-offs (alternatively, ref y @ .. produces (&T_N, ..., &T_M), but that is possibly surprising and inconsistent).

Is .. in a struct pattern not called a rest pattern? StructName { field_name: pat, .. }

No, a struct pattern does not consist of a sequence of patterns, but rather a sequence of FieldPats. The .. in a struct pattern is also special and is not an ast::PatKind::Rest.

Taking this literally suggests that a single pattern that matches any slice is mandatory, and this example would fail exhaustiveness checking:

The example results in an exhaustive match:

#![feature(slice_patterns)]

fn main() {
    let some_slice: &[u8] = &[];
    match some_slice {
        &[] => {}
        &[_a] => {}
        &[_a, _b] => {}
        &[_a, _b, _c, ..] => {}
    }
}

Is that the case, or is the compiler able to reason about the union of matched slice lengths? If the latter, I think “an exhaustive match without a rest pattern is impossible” would be more correct.

The compiler can reason about the fact that e.g. together, [] and [_, ..] cover the full set (as your example shows). I've clarified the report to note that both cover-all and subslice patterns work.

[SimonSapin]

Heh... I managed to forget this one in the "Related future work".

I should have clarified that I am not particularly in favor of adding support for bindings for sub-tuples. I only meant to confirm that they are not supported or planned. (The way the report mentioned rest patterns without bindings in tuples after rest patterns without and with bindings in slices suggested that this might be the "natural" next step.) I feel they are much less useful since tuples are usually heterogeneous, and they have complications (as you said with references) that I think are not worth getting into.

[pnkfelix]

From "Borrow and Move checking":

• ...
  • The array can be reinitialized and can still be matched with another slice pattern that uses a disjoint set of elements.

I am not sure how you intend for the above sentence to be interpreted. In my experience, slice patterns currently will not let you rematch an array where you have moved out via a slice pattern, even with a pattern that is disjoint compared to the previously matched part.

For example, consider the following playpen

#![feature(slice_patterns)]

#[derive(Clone, Debug)]
struct D(&'static str);

impl Drop for D {
    fn drop(&mut self) { println!("Dropping D({})", self.0); }
}

fn main() {
    let a = [D("a0"),D("a1"),D("a2"),D("a3"),D("a4"),D("a5"),D("a6"),D("a7")];
    println!("before matches");
    match a {
        [_, _, s2_5 @ .., _, _] => { println!("sub2_5 {:?}", s2_5); }
    }
    println!("between matches");
    match a {
        [_, _, _, _, _, _, s6_7 @ ..] => { println!("sub6_7 {:?}", s6_7); }
    }
    println!("after matches");
}

Here, the 8-element array a matched, first with a pattern that moves out elements a[2] .. a[5], and the second moves out elements a[6] .. a[7].

Or at least, it would if it compiled. But on the playpen, it currently issues the following error:

error[E0382]: use of moved value: `a`
  --> src/main.rs:17:11
   |
14 |         [_, _, s2_5 @ .., _, _] => { println!("sub2_5 {:?}", s2_5); }
   |                --------- value moved here
...
17 |     match a {
   |           ^ value used here after partial move
   |
   = note: move occurs because `a[..]` has type `D`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait

error: aborting due to previous error

Can you clarify what the above text is talking about?

• If the above text is intended to mean you can match against a disjoint slice pattern within the same match expression, that is a super important distinction to draw and probably worth spelling out more explicitly, perhaps even with some examples.

[Centril]

@pnkfelix

I am not sure how you intend for the above sentence to be interpreted. In my experience, slice patterns currently will not let you rematch an array where you have moved out via a slice pattern, even with a pattern that is disjoint compared to the previously matched part.

For example, consider the following playpen

@matthewjasper tells me that this is a case of the #53114 bug. That is, it's a case of _ doing a "read" where it shouldn't. If you use let bindings instead it works out (playground):

#![feature(slice_patterns)]
#![allow(warnings)]

struct X;

fn main() {
    let arr = [X, X, X, X, X, X];
    let [_, x @ .. ,   _, _] = arr;
    let [_, _, _, _, y @ ..] = arr;
}

See src/test/ui/borrowck/borrowck-move-out-from-array-no-overlap.rs for the test case.

My personal view is that this is an orthogonal bug that can be fixed separately. (However it does seem like a bug that now has renewed usefulness in being fixed soon, so maybe let's P-high that?)

[rfcbot]

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

[Centril]

To clarify the behavior that @pnkfelix was witnessing, I've filed #67990, which hardens the testing of slice patterns some more wrt. match and documents the behavior due to #53114.

[bors]

📌 Commit 57b6843 has been approved by matthewjasper

[Centril]

The stabilization also is extensively covered in Thomas Hartmann's blog post: https://thomashartmann.dev/blog/feature(slice_patterns)/.

[cdecompilador]

How will this work with string slices?

[oli-obk]

This feature is for array slices. If you want to talk about string slices, I think the internals forum would be the right place. This issue has been closed for over a year, please consider opening a new issue once a github issue becomes the right place.