Merge pull request #2175 from Centril/rfc/if-while-or-patterns

RFC: or-patterns in if / while let expressions

text/2175-if-while-or-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,383 @@
+- Feature Name: if_while_or_patterns
+- Start Date: 2017-10-16
+- RFC PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2175
+- Rust Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48215
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+[`if let`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/160
+[`while let`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/214
+
+Enables "or" patterns for [`if let`] and [`while let`] expressions as well as
+`let` statements. In other words, examples like the following are now possible:
+
+```rust
+enum E<T> {
+    A(T), B(T), C, D, E, F
+}
+
+// Assume the enum E and the following for the remainder of the RFC:
+use E::*;
+
+let x = A(1);
+let r = if let C | D = x { 1 } else { 2 };
+
+while let A(x) | B(x) = source() {
+    react_to(x);
+}
+
+enum ParameterKind<T, L = T> { Ty(T), Lifetime(L), }
+
+// Only possible when `L = T` such that `kind : ParameterKind<T, T>`.
+let Ty(x) | Lifetime(x) = kind;
+```
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+While nothing in this RFC is currently impossible in Rust, the changes the RFC
+proposes improves the ergonomics of control flow when dealing with `enum`s
+(sum types) with three or more variants where the program should react in one
+way to a group of variants, and another way to another group of variants.
+Examples of when such sum types occur are protocols, when dealing with
+languages (ASTs), and non-trivial iterators.
+
+The following snippet (written with this RFC):
+
+```rust
+if let A(x) | B(x) = expr {
+    do_stuff_with(x);
+}
+```
+
+must be written as:
+
+```rust
+if let A(x) = expr {
+    do_stuff_with(x);
+} else if let B(x) = expr {
+    do_stuff_with(x);
+}
+```
+
+or, using `match`:
+
+```rust
+match expr {
+    A(x) | B(x) => do_stuff_with(x),
+    _           => {},
+}
+```
+
+[`std::iter`]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/src/core/iter/mod.rs.html#691
+
+This way of using `match` is seen multiple times in [`std::iter`] when dealing
+with the `Chain` iterator adapter. An example of this is:
+
+```rust
+    fn fold<Acc, F>(self, init: Acc, mut f: F) -> Acc
+        where F: FnMut(Acc, Self::Item) -> Acc,
+    {
+        let mut accum = init;
+        match self.state {
+            ChainState::Both | ChainState::Front => {
+                accum = self.a.fold(accum, &mut f);
+            }
+            _ => { }
+        }
+        match self.state {
+            ChainState::Both | ChainState::Back => {
+                accum = self.b.fold(accum, &mut f);
+            }
+            _ => { }
+        }
+        accum
+    }
+```
+
+which could have been written as:
+
+```rust
+    fn fold<Acc, F>(self, init: Acc, mut f: F) -> Acc
+        where F: FnMut(Acc, Self::Item) -> Acc,
+    {
+        use ChainState::*;
+        let mut accum = init;
+        if let Both | Front = self.state { accum = self.a.fold(accum, &mut f); }
+        if let Both | Back  = self.state { accum = self.b.fold(accum, &mut f); }
+        accum
+    }
+```
+
+This version is both shorter and clearer.
+
+With `while let`, the ergonomics and in particular the readability can be
+significantly improved.
+
+The following snippet (written with this RFC):
+
+```rust
+while let A(x) | B(x) = source() {
+    react_to(x);
+}
+```
+
+must currently be written as:
+
+```rust
+loop {
+    match source() {
+        A(x) | B(x) => react_to(x),
+        _ => { break; }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Another major motivation of the RFC is consistency with `match`.
+
+To keep `let` statements consistent with `if let`, and to enable the scenario
+exemplified by `ParameterKind` in the [motivation], these or-patterns are
+allowed at the top level of `let` statements.
+
+In addition to the `ParameterKind` example, we can also consider
+`slice.binary_search(&x)`. If we are only interested in the `index` at where
+`x` is or would be, without any regard for if it was there or not, we can
+now simply write:
+
+```rust
+let Ok(index) | Err(index) = slice.binary_search(&x);
+```
+
+and we will get back the `index` in any case and continue on from there.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+[RFC 2005]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2005-match-ergonomics.md#examples
+
+[RFC 2005], in describing the third example in the section "Examples", refers to
+patterns with `|` in them as "or" patterns. This RFC adopts the same terminology.
+
+While the "sum" of all patterns in `match` must be irrefutable, or in other
+words: cover all cases, be exhaustive, this is not the case (currently) with
+`if/while let`, which may have a refutable pattern.
+This RFC does not change this.
+
+The RFC only extends the use of or-patterns at the top level from `match`es
+to `if let` and `while let` expressions as well as `let` statements.
+
+For examples, see [motivation].
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+## Grammar
+
+[§ 7.2.24]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/grammar.html#if-let-expressions
+[§ 7.2.25]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/grammar.html#while-let-loops
+
+### `if let`
+
+The grammar in [§ 7.2.24] is changed from:
+
+```
+if_let_expr : "if" "let" pat '=' expr '{' block '}'
+               else_tail ? ;
+```
+
+to:
+
+```
+if_let_expr : "if" "let" pat [ '|' pat ] * '=' expr '{' block '}'
+               else_tail ? ;
+```
+
+### `while let`
+
+The grammar in [§ 7.2.25] is changed from:
+
+```
+while_let_expr : [ lifetime ':' ] ? "while" "let" pat '=' expr '{' block '}' ;
+```
+
+to:
+
+```
+while_let_expr : [ lifetime ':' ] ? "while" "let" pat [ '|' pat ] * '=' expr '{' block '}' ;
+```
+
+### `let` statements
+
+The statement `stmt` grammar is replaced with a language equivalent to:
+
+```
+stmt ::= old_stmt_grammar
+       | let_stmt_many
+       ;
+
+let_stmt_many ::= "let" pat_two_plus "=" expr ";"
+
+pat_two_plus ::= pat [ '|' pat ] + ;
+```
+
+## Syntax lowering
+
+The changes proposed in this RFC with respect to `if let` and `while let`
+can be implemented by transforming the `if/while let` constructs with a
+syntax-lowering pass into `match` and `loop` + `match` expressions.
+
+Meanwhile, `let` statements can be transformed into a continuation with
+`match` as described below.
+
+### Examples, `if let`
+
+[`if let` RFC]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/160
+
+These examples are extensions on the [`if let` RFC]. Therefore, the RFC avoids
+duplicating any details already specified there.
+
+Source:
+```rust
+if let PAT [| PAT]* = EXPR { BODY }
+```
+Result:
+```rust
+match EXPR {
+    PAT [| PAT]* => { BODY }
+    _ => {}
+}
+```
+
+Source:
+```rust
+if let PAT [| PAT]* = EXPR { BODY_IF } else { BODY_ELSE }
+```
+Result:
+```rust
+match EXPR {
+    PAT [| PAT]* => { BODY_IF }
+    _ => { BODY_ELSE }
+}
+```
+
+Source:
+```rust
+if COND {
+    BODY_IF
+} else if let PAT [| PAT]* = EXPR {
+    BODY_ELSE_IF
+} else {
+    BODY_ELSE
+}
+```
+Result:
+```rust
+if COND {
+    BODY_IF
+} else {
+    match EXPR {
+        PAT [| PAT]* => { BODY_ELSE_IF }
+        _ => { BODY_ELSE }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Source
+```rust
+if let PAT [| PAT]* = EXPR {
+    BODY_IF
+} else if COND {
+    BODY_ELSE_IF_1
+} else if OTHER_COND {
+    BODY_ELSE_IF_2
+}
+```
+Result:
+```rust
+match EXPR {
+    PAT [| PAT]* => { BODY_IF }
+    _ if COND => { BODY_ELSE_IF_1 }
+    _ if OTHER_COND => { BODY_ELSE_IF_2 }
+    _ => {}
+}
+```
+
+### Examples, `while let`
+
+[`while let` RFC]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/214
+
+The following example is an extension on the [`while let` RFC].
+
+Source
+```rust
+['label:] while let PAT [| PAT]* = EXPR {
+    BODY
+}
+```
+Result:
+```rust
+['label:] loop {
+    match EXPR {
+        PAT [| PAT]* => BODY,
+        _ => break
+    }
+}
+```
+
+## Desugaring `let` statements with `|` in the top-level pattern
+
+This is a possible desugaring that a Rust compiler may do.
+While such a compiler may elect to implement this differently,
+these semantics should be kept.
+
+Source:
+```rust
+{
+    // prefix of statements:
+    stmt*
+    // The let statement which is the cause for desugaring:
+    let_stmt_many
+    // the continuation / suffix of statements:
+    stmt*
+    tail_expr? // Meta-variable for optional tail expression without ; at end
+}
+```
+Result
+```rust
+{
+    stmt*
+    match expr {
+        pat_two_plus => {
+            stmt*
+            tail_expr?
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+This adds more additions to the grammar and makes the compiler more complex.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+This could simply not be done.
+Consistency with `match` is however on its own reason enough to do this.
+
+It could be claimed that the `if/while let` RFCs already mandate this RFC,
+this RFC does answer that question and instead simply mandates it now.
+
+Another alternative is to only deal with `if/while let` expressions but not
+`let` statements.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+The exact syntax transformations should be deferred to the implementation.
+This RFC does not mandate exactly how the AST:s should be transformed, only
+that the or-pattern feature be supported.
+
+There are no unresolved questions.