a37fa37281
Add the `min_exhaustive_patterns` feature gate ## Motivation Pattern-matching on empty types is tricky around unsafe code. For that reason, current stable rust conservatively requires arms for empty types in all but the simplest case. It has long been the intention to allow omitting empty arms when it's safe to do so. The [`exhaustive_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51085) feature allows the omission of all empty arms, but hasn't been stabilized because that was deemed dangerous around unsafe code. ## Proposal This feature aims to stabilize an uncontroversial subset of exhaustive_patterns. Namely: when `min_exhaustive_patterns` is enabled and the data we're matching on is guaranteed to be valid by rust's operational semantics, then we allow empty arms to be omitted. E.g.: ```rust let x: Result<T, !> = foo(); match x { // ok Ok(y) => ..., } let Ok(y) = x; // ok ``` If the place is not guaranteed to hold valid data (namely ptr dereferences, ref dereferences (conservatively) and union field accesses), then we keep stable behavior i.e. we (usually) require arms for the empty cases. ```rust unsafe { let ptr: *const Result<u32, !> = ...; match *ptr { Ok(x) => { ... } Err(_) => { ... } // still required } } let foo: Result<u32, &!> = ...; match foo { Ok(x) => { ... } Err(&_) => { ... } // still required because of the dereference } unsafe { let ptr: *const ! = ...; match *ptr {} // already allowed on stable } ``` Note that we conservatively consider that a valid reference can point to invalid data, hence we don't allow arms of type `&!` and similar cases to be omitted. This could eventually change depending on [opsem decisions](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/413). Whenever opsem is undecided on a case, we conservatively keep today's stable behavior. I proposed this behavior in the [`never_patterns`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/118155) feature gate but it makes sense on its own and could be stabilized more quickly. The two proposals nicely complement each other. ## Unresolved Questions Part of the question is whether this requires an RFC. I'd argue this doesn't need one since there is no design question beyond the intent to omit unreachable patterns, but I'm aware the problem can be framed in ways that require design (I'm thinking of the [original never patterns proposal](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2018/08/13/never-patterns-exhaustive-matching-and-uninhabited-types-oh-my/), which would frame this behavior as "auto-nevering" happening). EDIT: I initially proposed a future-compatibility lint as part of this feature, I don't anymore.
The Rust Programming Language
This is the main source code repository for Rust. It contains the compiler, standard library, and documentation.
Note: this README is for users rather than contributors. If you wish to contribute to the compiler, you should read CONTRIBUTING.md instead.
Table of Contents
Quick Start
Read "Installation" from The Book.
Installing from Source
If you really want to install from source (though this is not recommended), see INSTALL.md.
Getting Help
See https://www.rust-lang.org/community for a list of chat platforms and forums.
Contributing
See CONTRIBUTING.md.
License
Rust is primarily distributed under the terms of both the MIT license and the Apache License (Version 2.0), with portions covered by various BSD-like licenses.
See LICENSE-APACHE, LICENSE-MIT, and COPYRIGHT for details.
Trademark
The Rust Foundation owns and protects the Rust and Cargo trademarks and logos (the "Rust Trademarks").
If you want to use these names or brands, please read the media guide.
Third-party logos may be subject to third-party copyrights and trademarks. See Licenses for details.