This RFC has been unapproved

For details see the summary comment.


  • Change placement-new syntax from: box (<place-expr>) <expr> instead to: in <place-expr> { <block> }.

  • Change box <expr> to an overloaded operator that chooses its implementation based on the expected type.

  • Use unstable traits in core::ops for both operators, so that libstd can provide support for the overloaded operators; the traits are unstable so that the language designers are free to revise the underlying protocol in the future post 1.0.

  • Feature-gate the placement-in syntax via the feature name placement_in_syntax.

  • The overloaded box <expr> will reuse the box_syntax feature name.

(Note that <block> here denotes the interior of a block expression; i.e.:

<block> ::= [ <stmt> ';' | <item> ] * [ <expr> ]

This is the same sense in which the block nonterminal is used in the reference manual.)


Goal 1: We want to support an operation analogous to C++'s placement new, as discussed previously in Placement Box RFC PR 470.

Goal 2: We also would like to overload our box syntax so that more types, such as Rc<T> and Arc<T> can gain the benefit of avoiding intermediate copies (i.e. allowing expressions to install their result value directly into the backing storage of the Rc<T> or Arc<T> when it is created).

However, during discussion of Placement Box RFC PR 470, some things became clear:

  • Many syntaxes using the in keyword are superior to box (<place-expr>) <expr> for the operation analogous to placement-new.

    The proposed in-based syntax avoids ambiguities such as having to write box () (<expr>) (or box (alloc::HEAP) (<expr>)) when one wants to surround <expr> with parentheses. It allows the parser to provide clearer error messages when encountering in <place-expr> <expr> (clearer compared to the previous situation with box <place-expr> <expr>).

  • It would be premature for Rust to commit to any particular protocol for supporting placement-in. A number of participants in the discussion of Placement Box RFC PR 470 were unhappy with the baroque protocol, especially since it did not support DST and potential future language changes would allow the protocol proposed there to be significantly simplified.

Therefore, this RFC proposes a middle ground for 1.0: Support the desired syntax, but do not provide stable support for end-user implementations of the operators. The only stable ways to use the overloaded box <expr> or in <place-expr> { <block> } operators will be in tandem with types provided by the stdlib, such as Box<T>.

Detailed design

  • Add traits to core::ops for supporting the new operators. This RFC does not commit to any particular set of traits, since they are not currently meant to be implemented outside of the stdlib. (However, a demonstration of one working set of traits is given in Appendix A.)

    Any protocol that we adopt for the operators needs to properly handle panics; i.e., box <expr> must properly cleanup any intermediate state if <expr> panics during its evaluation, and likewise for in <place-expr> { <block> }

    (See Placement Box RFC PR 470 or Appendix A for discussion on ways to accomplish this.)

  • Change box <expr> from built-in syntax (tightly integrated with Box<T>) into an overloaded-box operator that uses the expected return type to decide what kind of value to create. For example, if Rc<T> is extended with an implementation of the appropriate operator trait, then

    # #![allow(unused_variables)]
    #fn main() {
    let x: Rc<_> = box format!("Hello");

    could be a legal way to create an Rc<String> without having to invoke the Rc::new function. This will be more efficient for building instances of Rc<T> when T is a large type. (It is also arguably much cleaner syntax to read, regardless of the type T.)

    Note that this change will require end-user code to no longer assume that box <expr> always produces a Box<T>; such code will need to either add a type annotation e.g. saying Box<_>, or will need to call Box::new(<expr>) instead of using box <expr>.

  • Add support for parsing in <place-expr> { <block> } as the basis for the placement operator.

    Remove support for box (<place-expr>) <expr> from the parser.

    Make in <place-expr> { <block> } an overloaded operator that uses the <place-expr> to determine what placement code to run.

    Note: when <place-expr> is just an identifier, <place-expr> { <block> } is not parsed as a struct literal. We accomplish this via the same means that is used e.g. for if expressions: we restrict <place-expr> to not include struct literals (see RFC 92).

  • The only stablized implementation for the box <expr> operator proposed by this RFC is Box<T>. The question of which other types should support integration with box <expr> is a library design issue and needs to go through the conventions and library stabilization process.

    Similarly, this RFC does not propose any stablized implementation for the in <place-expr> { <block> } operator. (An obvious candidate for in <place-expr> { <block> } integration would be a Vec::emplace_back method; but again, the choice of which such methods to add is a library design issue, beyond the scope of this RFC.)

    (A sample implementation illustrating how to support the operators on other types is given in Appendix A.)

  • Feature-gate the two syntaxes under separate feature identifiers, so that we have the option of removing the gate for one syntax without the other. (I.e. we already have much experience with non-overloaded box <expr>, but we have nearly no experience with placement-in as described here).


  • End-users might be annoyed that they cannot add implementations of the overloaded-box and placement-in operators themselves. But such users who want to do such a thing will probably be using the nightly release channel, which will not have the same stability restrictions.

  • The currently-implemented desugaring does not infer that in an expression like box <expr> as Box<Trait>, the use of box <expr> should evaluate to some Box<_>. pnkfelix has found that this is due to a weakness in compiler itself (Rust PR 22012).

    Likewise, the currently-implemented desugaring does not interact well with the combination of type-inference and implicit coercions to trait objects. That is, when box <expr> is used in a context like this:

    fn foo(Box<SomeTrait>) { ... }
    foo(box some_expr());

    the type inference system attempts to unify the type Box<SomeTrait> with the return-type of ::protocol::Boxed::finalize(place). This may also be due to weakness in the compiler, but that is not immediately obvious.

    Appendix B has a complete code snippet (using a desugaring much like the one found in the other appendix) that illustrates two cases of interest where this weakness arises.


  • We could keep the box (<place-expr>) <expr> syntax. It is hard to see what the advantage of that is, unless (1.) we can identify many cases of types that benefit from supporting both overloaded-box and placement-in, or unless (2.) we anticipate some integration with box pattern syntax that would motivate using the box keyword for placement.

  • We could use the in (<place-expr>) <expr> syntax. An earlier version of this RFC used this alternative. It is easier to implement on the current code base, but I do not know of any other benefits. (Well, maybe parentheses are less "heavyweight" than curly-braces?)

  • A number of other syntaxes for placement have been proposed in the past; see for example discussion on RFC PR 405 as well as the previous placement RFC.

    The main constraints I want to meet are:

    1. Do not introduce ambiguity into the grammar for Rust
    2. Maintain left-to-right evaluation order (so the place should appear to the left of the value expression in the text).

    But otherwise I am not particularly attached to any single syntax.

    One particular alternative that might placate those who object to placement-in's box-free form would be: box (in <place-expr>) <expr>.

  • Do nothing. I.e. do not even accept an unstable libstd-only protocol for placement-in and overloaded-box. This would be okay, but unfortunate, since in the past some users have identified intermediate copies to be a source of inefficiency, and proper use of box <expr> and placement-in can help remove intermediate copies.

Unresolved questions

This RFC represents the current plan for box/in. However, in the RFC discussion a number of questions arose, including possible design alternatives that might render the in keyword unnecessary. Before the work in this RFC can be unfeature-gated, these questions should be satisfactorily resolved:

  • Can the type-inference and coercion system of the compiler be enriched to the point where overloaded box and in are seamlessly usable? Or are type-ascriptions unavoidable when supporting overloading?

    In particular, I am assuming here that some amount of current weakness cannot be blamed on any particular details of the sample desugaring.

    (See Appendix B for example code showing weaknesses in rustc of today.)

  • Do we want to change the syntax for in(place) expr / in place { expr }?

  • Do we need in at all, or can we replace it with some future possible feature such as DerefSet or &out etc?

  • Do we want to improve the protocol in some way?

    • Note that the protocol was specifically excluded from this RFC.
    • Support for DST expressions such as box [22, ..count] (where count is a dynamic value)?
    • Protocol making use of more advanced language features?


Appendix A: sample operator traits

The goal is to show that code like the following can be made to work in Rust today via appropriate desugarings and trait definitions.

fn main() {
    use std::rc::Rc;

    let mut v = vec![1,2];
    in v.emplace_back() { 3 }; // has return type `()`
    println!("v: {:?}", v); // prints [1,2,3]

    let b4: Box<i32> = box 4;
    println!("b4: {}", b4);

    let b5: Rc<i32> = box 5;
    println!("b5: {}", b5);

    let b6 = in HEAP { 6 }; // return type Box<i32>
    println!("b6: {}", b6);

To demonstrate the above, this appendix provides code that runs today; it demonstrates sample protocols for the proposed operators. (The entire code-block below should work when e.g. cut-and-paste into )

#![feature(unsafe_destructor)] // (hopefully unnecessary soon with RFC PR 769)

// The easiest way to illustrate the desugaring is by implementing
// it with macros.  So, we will use the macro `in_` for placement-`in`
// and the macro `box_` for overloaded-`box`; you should read
// `in_!( (<place-expr>) <expr> )` as if it were `in <place-expr> { <expr> }`
// and
// `box_!( <expr> )` as if it were `box <expr>`.

// The two macros have been designed to both 1. work with current Rust
// syntax (which in some cases meant avoiding certain associated-item
// syntax that currently causes the compiler to ICE) and 2. infer the
// appropriate code to run based only on either `<place-expr>` (for
// placement-`in`) or on the expected result type (for
// overloaded-`box`).

macro_rules! in_ {
    (($placer:expr) $value:expr) => { {
        let p = $placer;
        let mut place = ::protocol::Placer::make_place(p);
        let raw_place = ::protocol::Place::pointer(&mut place);
        let value = $value;
        unsafe {
            ::std::ptr::write(raw_place, value);
    } }

macro_rules! box_ {
    ($value:expr) => { {
        let mut place = ::protocol::BoxPlace::make_place();
        let raw_place = ::protocol::Place::pointer(&mut place);
        let value = $value;
        unsafe {
            ::std::ptr::write(raw_place, value);
    } }

// Note that while both desugarings are very similar, there are some
// slight differences.  In particular, the placement-`in` desugaring
// uses `InPlace::finalize(place)`, which is a `finalize` method that
// is overloaded based on the `place` argument (the type of which is
// derived from the `<place-expr>` input); on the other hand, the
// overloaded-`box` desugaring uses `Boxed::finalize(place)`, which is
// a `finalize` method that is overloaded based on the expected return
// type. Thus, the determination of which `finalize` method to call is
// derived from different sources in the two desugarings.

// The above desugarings refer to traits in a `protocol` module; these
// are the traits that would be put into `std::ops`, and are given
// below.

mod protocol {

/// Both `in PLACE { BLOCK }` and `box EXPR` desugar into expressions
/// that allocate an intermediate "place" that holds uninitialized
/// state.  The desugaring evaluates EXPR, and writes the result at
/// the address returned by the `pointer` method of this trait.
/// A `Place` can be thought of as a special representation for a
/// hypothetical `&uninit` reference (which Rust cannot currently
/// express directly). That is, it represents a pointer to
/// uninitialized storage.
/// The client is responsible for two steps: First, initializing the
/// payload (it can access its address via `pointer`). Second,
/// converting the agent to an instance of the owning pointer, via the
/// appropriate `finalize` method (see the `InPlace`.
/// If evaluating EXPR fails, then the destructor for the
/// implementation of Place to clean up any intermediate state
/// (e.g. deallocate box storage, pop a stack, etc).
pub trait Place<Data: ?Sized> {
    /// Returns the address where the input value will be written.
    /// Note that the data at this address is generally uninitialized,
    /// and thus one should use `ptr::write` for initializing it.
    fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut Data;

/// Interface to implementations of  `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
/// `in PLACE { BLOCK }` effectively desugars into:
/// ```
/// let p = PLACE;
/// let mut place = Placer::make_place(p);
/// let raw_place = Place::pointer(&mut place);
/// let value = { BLOCK };
/// unsafe {
///     std::ptr::write(raw_place, value);
///     InPlace::finalize(place)
/// }
/// ```
/// The type of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` is derived from the type of `PLACE`;
/// if the type of `PLACE` is `P`, then the final type of the whole
/// expression is `P::Place::Owner` (see the `InPlace` and `Boxed`
/// traits).
/// Values for types implementing this trait usually are transient
/// intermediate values (e.g. the return value of `Vec::emplace_back`)
/// or `Copy`, since the `make_place` method takes `self` by value.
pub trait Placer<Data: ?Sized> {
    /// `Place` is the intermedate agent guarding the
    /// uninitialized state for `Data`.
    type Place: InPlace<Data>;

    /// Creates a fresh place from `self`.
    fn make_place(self) -> Self::Place;

/// Specialization of `Place` trait supporting `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
pub trait InPlace<Data: ?Sized>: Place<Data> {
    /// `Owner` is the type of the end value of `in PLACE { BLOCK }`
    /// Note that when `in PLACE { BLOCK }` is solely used for
    /// side-effecting an existing data-structure,
    /// e.g. `Vec::emplace_back`, then `Owner` need not carry any
    /// information at all (e.g. it can be the unit type `()` in that
    /// case).
    type Owner;

    /// Converts self into the final value, shifting
    /// deallocation/cleanup responsibilities (if any remain), over to
    /// the returned instance of `Owner` and forgetting self.
    unsafe fn finalize(self) -> Self::Owner;

/// Core trait for the `box EXPR` form.
/// `box EXPR` effectively desugars into:
/// ```
/// let mut place = BoxPlace::make_place();
/// let raw_place = Place::pointer(&mut place);
/// let value = $value;
/// unsafe {
///     ::std::ptr::write(raw_place, value);
///     Boxed::finalize(place)
/// }
/// ```
/// The type of `box EXPR` is supplied from its surrounding
/// context; in the above expansion, the result type `T` is used
/// to determine which implementation of `Boxed` to use, and that
/// `<T as Boxed>` in turn dictates determines which
/// implementation of `BoxPlace` to use, namely:
/// `<<T as Boxed>::Place as BoxPlace>`.
pub trait Boxed {
    /// The kind of data that is stored in this kind of box.
    type Data;  /* (`Data` unused b/c cannot yet express below bound.) */
    type Place; /* should be bounded by BoxPlace<Self::Data> */

    /// Converts filled place into final owning value, shifting
    /// deallocation/cleanup responsibilities (if any remain), over to
    /// returned instance of `Self` and forgetting `filled`.
    unsafe fn finalize(filled: Self::Place) -> Self;

/// Specialization of `Place` trait supporting `box EXPR`.
pub trait BoxPlace<Data: ?Sized> : Place<Data> {
    /// Creates a globally fresh place.
    fn make_place() -> Self;

} // end of `mod protocol`

// Next, we need to see sample implementations of these traits.
// First, `Box<T>` needs to support overloaded-`box`: (Note that this
// is not the desired end implementation; e.g.  the `BoxPlace`
// representation here is less efficient than it could be. This is
// just meant to illustrate that an implementation *can* be made;
// i.e. that the overloading *works*.)
// Also, just for kicks, I am throwing in `in HEAP { <block> }` support,
// though I do not think that needs to be part of the stable libstd.

struct HEAP;

mod impl_box_for_box {
    use protocol as proto;
    use std::mem;
    use super::HEAP;

    struct BoxPlace<T> { fake_box: Option<Box<T>> }

    fn make_place<T>() -> BoxPlace<T> {
        let t: T = unsafe { mem::zeroed() };
        BoxPlace { fake_box: Some(Box::new(t)) }

    unsafe fn finalize<T>(mut filled: BoxPlace<T>) -> Box<T> {
        let mut ret = None;
        mem::swap(&mut filled.fake_box, &mut ret);

    impl<'a, T> proto::Placer<T> for HEAP {
        type Place = BoxPlace<T>;
        fn make_place(self) -> BoxPlace<T> { make_place() }

    impl<T> proto::Place<T> for BoxPlace<T> {
        fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut T {
            match self.fake_box {
                Some(ref mut b) => &mut **b as *mut T,
                None => panic!("impossible"),

    impl<T> proto::BoxPlace<T> for BoxPlace<T> {
        fn make_place() -> BoxPlace<T> { make_place() }

    impl<T> proto::InPlace<T> for BoxPlace<T> {
        type Owner = Box<T>;
        unsafe fn finalize(self) -> Box<T> { finalize(self) }

    impl<T> proto::Boxed for Box<T> {
        type Data = T;
        type Place = BoxPlace<T>;
        unsafe fn finalize(filled: BoxPlace<T>) -> Self { finalize(filled) }

// Second, it might be nice if `Rc<T>` supported overloaded-`box`.
// (Note again that this may not be the most efficient implementation;
// it is just meant to illustrate that an implementation *can* be
// made; i.e. that the overloading *works*.)
mod impl_box_for_rc {
    use protocol as proto;
    use std::mem;
    use std::rc::{self, Rc};

    struct RcPlace<T> { fake_box: Option<Rc<T>> }

    impl<T> proto::Place<T> for RcPlace<T> {
        fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut T {
            if let Some(ref mut b) = self.fake_box {
                if let Some(r) = rc::get_mut(b) {
                    return r as *mut T

    impl<T> proto::BoxPlace<T> for RcPlace<T> {
        fn make_place() -> RcPlace<T> {
            unsafe {
                let t: T = mem::zeroed();
                RcPlace { fake_box: Some(Rc::new(t)) }

    impl<T> proto::Boxed for Rc<T> {
        type Data = T;
        type Place = RcPlace<T>;
        unsafe fn finalize(mut filled: RcPlace<T>) -> Self {
            let mut ret = None;
            mem::swap(&mut filled.fake_box, &mut ret);

// Third, we want something to demonstrate placement-`in`. Let us use
// `Vec::emplace_back` for that:

mod impl_in_for_vec_emplace_back {
    use protocol as proto;

    use std::mem;

    struct VecPlacer<'a, T:'a> { v: &'a mut Vec<T> }
    struct VecPlace<'a, T:'a> { v: &'a mut Vec<T> }

    pub trait EmplaceBack<T> { fn emplace_back(&mut self) -> VecPlacer<T>; }

    impl<T> EmplaceBack<T> for Vec<T> {
        fn emplace_back(&mut self) -> VecPlacer<T> { VecPlacer { v: self } }

    impl<'a, T> proto::Placer<T> for VecPlacer<'a, T> {
        type Place = VecPlace<'a, T>;
        fn make_place(self) -> VecPlace<'a, T> { VecPlace { v: self.v } }

    impl<'a, T> proto::Place<T> for VecPlace<'a, T> {
        fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut T {
            unsafe {
                let idx = self.v.len();
                &mut self.v[idx]
    impl<'a, T> proto::InPlace<T> for VecPlace<'a, T> {
        type Owner = ();
        unsafe fn finalize(self) -> () {

    impl<'a, T> Drop for VecPlace<'a, T> {
        fn drop(&mut self) {
            unsafe {

// Okay, that's enough for us to actually demonstrate the syntax!
// Here's our `fn main`:

fn main() {
    use std::rc::Rc;
    // get hacked-in `emplace_back` into scope
    use impl_in_for_vec_emplace_back::EmplaceBack;

    let mut v = vec![1,2];
    in_!( (v.emplace_back()) 3 );
    println!("v: {:?}", v);

    let b4: Box<i32> = box_!( 4 );
    println!("b4: {}", b4);

    let b5: Rc<i32> = box_!( 5 );
    println!("b5: {}", b5);

    let b6 = in_!( (HEAP) 6 ); // return type Box<i32>
    println!("b6: {}", b6);

Appendix B: examples of interaction between desugaring, type-inference, and coercion

The following code works with the current version of box syntax in Rust, but needs some sort of type annotation in Rust as it stands today for the desugaring of box to work out.

(The following code uses cfg attributes to make it easy to switch between slight variations on the portions that expose the weakness.)


// NOTE: Scroll down to "START HERE"

fn main() { }

macro_rules! box_ {
    ($value:expr) => { {
        let mut place = ::BoxPlace::make();
        let raw_place = ::Place::pointer(&mut place);
        let value = $value;
        unsafe { ::std::ptr::write(raw_place, value); ::Boxed::fin(place) }
    } }

// (Support traits and impls for examples below.)

pub trait BoxPlace<Data: ?Sized> : Place<Data> { fn make() -> Self; }
pub trait Place<Data: ?Sized> { fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut Data; }
pub trait Boxed { type Place; fn fin(filled: Self::Place) -> Self; }

struct BP<T: ?Sized> { _fake_box: Option<Box<T>> }

impl<T> BoxPlace<T> for BP<T> { fn make() -> BP<T> { make_pl() } }
impl<T: ?Sized> Place<T> for BP<T> { fn pointer(&mut self) -> *mut T { pointer(self) } }
impl<T: ?Sized> Boxed for Box<T> { type Place = BP<T>; fn fin(x: BP<T>) -> Self { finaliz(x) } }

fn make_pl<T>() -> BP<T> { loop { } }
fn finaliz<T: ?Sized>(mut _filled: BP<T>) -> Box<T> { loop { } }
fn pointer<T: ?Sized>(_p: &mut BP<T>) -> *mut T { loop { } }


pub type BoxFn<'a> = Box<Fn() + 'a>;

pub fn coerce<'a, F>(f: F) -> BoxFn<'a> where F: Fn(), F: 'a { box_!( f ) }

pub fn coerce<'a, F>(f: F) -> BoxFn<'a> where F: Fn(), F: 'a {   box  f   }

pub fn coerce<'a, F>(f: F) -> BoxFn<'a> where F: Fn(), F: 'a { let b: Box<_> = box_!( f ); b }

#[cfg(coerce_works3)] // (This one assumes PR 22012 has landed)
pub fn coerce<'a, F>(f: F) -> BoxFn<'a> where F: Fn(), F: 'a { box_!( f ) as BoxFn }

trait Duh { fn duh() -> Self; }

impl<T> Duh for Box<[T]> { fn duh() -> Box<[T]> { box_!( [] ) } }

impl<T> Duh for Box<[T]> { fn duh() -> Box<[T]> {   box  [] } }

impl<T> Duh for Box<[T]> { fn duh() -> Box<[T]> { let b: Box<[_; 0]> =  box_!( [] ); b } }

You can pass --cfg duh_worksN and --cfg coerce_worksM for suitable N and M to see them compile. Here is a transcript with those attempts, including the cases where type-inference fails in the desugaring.

% rustc /tmp/ --cfg duh_works1 --cfg coerce_works1
% rustc /tmp/ --cfg duh_works1 --cfg coerce_works2
% rustc /tmp/ --cfg duh_works2 --cfg coerce_works1
% rustc /tmp/ --cfg duh_works1
/tmp/ 10:41 error: the trait `Place<F>` is not implemented for the type `BP<core::ops::Fn()>` [E0277]
/tmp/         let raw_place = ::Place::pointer(&mut place);
/tmp/ 14:2 note: in expansion of box_!
/tmp/ 37:76 note: expansion site
/tmp/ 9:41 error: the trait `core::marker::Sized` is not implemented for the type `core::ops::Fn()` [E0277]
/tmp/         let mut place = ::BoxPlace::make();
/tmp/ 14:2 note: in expansion of box_!
/tmp/ 37:76 note: expansion site
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
% rustc /tmp/                  --cfg coerce_works1
/tmp/ 10:41 error: the trait `Place<[_; 0]>` is not implemented for the type `BP<[T]>` [E0277]
/tmp/         let raw_place = ::Place::pointer(&mut place);
/tmp/ 14:2 note: in expansion of box_!
/tmp/ 52:64 note: expansion site
/tmp/ 9:41 error: the trait `core::marker::Sized` is not implemented for the type `[T]` [E0277]
/tmp/         let mut place = ::BoxPlace::make();
/tmp/ 14:2 note: in expansion of box_!
/tmp/ 52:64 note: expansion site
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

The point I want to get across is this: It looks like both of these cases can be worked around via explicit type ascription. Whether or not this is an acceptable cost is a reasonable question.

  • Note that type ascription is especially annoying for the fn duh case, where one needs to keep the array-length encoded in the type consistent with the length of the array generated by the expression. This might motivate extending the use of wildcard _ within type expressions to include wildcard constants, for use in the array length, i.e.: [T; _].

The fn coerce example comes from uses of the fn combine_structure function in the libsyntax crate.

The fn duh example comes from the implementation of the Default trait for Box<[T]>.

Both examples are instances of coercion; the fn coerce example is trying to express a coercion of a Box<Type> to a Box<Trait> (i.e. making a trait-object), and the fn duh example is trying to express a coercion of a Box<[T; k]> (specifically [T; 0]) to a Box<[T]>. Both are going from a pointer-to-sized to a pointer-to-unsized.

(Maybe there is a way to handle both of these cases in a generic fashion; pnkfelix is not sufficiently familiar with how coercions currently interact with type-inference in the first place.)