Our first RFC - rust-lang/rfcs#3873 - is in the FCP process, waiting on boxes being checked. rust-lang/rfcs#3874 and rust-lang/rfcs#3875 are receiving feedback which is being addressed.

We've now opened our first batch of RFCs: rust-lang/rfcs#3873, rust-lang/rfcs#3874 and rust-lang/rfcs#3875

Key developments: What has happened since the last time. It's perfectly ok to list "nothing" if that's the truth, we know people get busy.

Nothing! This is the first update and I have yet to focus attention on the project goal. For context, I am employed by the Rust Foundation leading the C++ Interoperability initiative and so far have been executing against the strategy detailed in the problem statement. Owing to greater than anticipated success and deadlines related to WG21 meetings, I've been focusing on the Social Interoperability strategy recently. I have just reached a point where I can turn more attention to the other strategies and so expect to make progress on this goal soon.

Blockers: List any Rust teams you are waiting on and what you are waiting for.

None; I'm getting excellent support from the Project in everything I'm doing. My successes thus far would not have been possible without them, and there are too many to enumerate in this space. There will be a blog post coming soon detailing the past year of work in the initiative where I intend to go into detail. Watch this space for updates.

Help wanted: Are there places where you are looking for contribution or feedback from the broader community?

I am always interested in contribution and feedback. If you're interested, please reach out via interop@rustfoundation.org or t-lang/interop.

Another related PR:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/148820

I implemented an initial MVP supporting only tuples and primitives (tho those are just opaque things you can't interact with further), and getting offsets for the tuple fields as well as the size of the tuple: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/146923

There are two designs of how to expose this from a libs perspective, but after a sync meeting with scottmcm yesterday we came to the conclusion that neither is objectively better at this stage so we're just going to go with the nice end-user UX version for now. For details see the PR description.

Once the MVP lands, I will mentor various interested contributors who will keep adding fields to the Type struct and variants the TypeKind enum.

The next major step is restricting what information you can get from structs outside of the current module or crate. We want to honor visibility, so an initial step would be to just never show private fields, but we want to explore allowing private fields to be shown either just within the current module or via some opt-in marker trait

No progress since [Niko Matsakis's last comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/270#issuecomment-3492255970) - intending to experiment with resolving challenges with Deref::Target and land the SVE infrastructure with unfinished parts for experimentation.

Notes from our meeting today:

Syntax proposal: only keyword

We are exploring the use of a new only keyword to identify "special" bounds that will affect the default bounds applied to the type parameter. Under this proposal, T: SizeOfVal is a regular bound, but T: only SizeOfVal indicates that the T: const Sized default is suppressed.

For the initial proposal, only can only be applied to a known set of traits; one possible extension would be to permit traits with only supertraits to also have only applied to them:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
trait MyDeref: only SizeOfVal { }
fn foo<T: only MyDeref>() { }

// equivalent to

trait MyDeref: only SizeOfVal { }
fn foo<T: MyDeref + only SizeOfVal>() { }
}

We discussed a few other syntactic options:

• A ^SizeOfVal sigil was appealing due to the semver analogy but rejected on the basis of it being cryptic and hard to google.
• The idea of applying the keyword to the type parameter only T: SizeOfVal sort of made sense, but it would not compose well if we add additional families of "opt-out" traits like Destruct and Forget, and it's not clear how it applies to supertraits.

Transitioning target

After testing, we confirmed that relaxing Target bound will result in significant breakage without some kind of transitionary measures.

We discussed the options for addressing this. One option would be to leverage "Implementable trait aliases" RFC but that would require a new trait (Deref20XX) that has a weaker bound an alias trait Deref = Deref20XX<Target: only SizeOfVal>. That seems very disruptive.

Instead, we are considering an edition-based approach where (in Rust 2024) a T: Target bound is defaulted to T: Deref<Target: only SizeOfVal> and (in Rust 20XX) T: Target is defaulted to T: Deref<Target: only Pointee>. The edition transition would therefore convert bounds to one of those two forms to be fully explicit.

One caveat here is that this edition transition, if implemented naively, would result in stronger bounds than are needed much of the time. Therefore, we will explore the option of using bottom-up analysis to determine when transitioning whether the 20XX bound can be used instead of the more conservative 2024 bound.

Supertrait bounds

We explored the implications of weakening supertrait bounds a bit, looking at this example

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
trait FooTr<T: ?Sized> {}

struct Foo<T: ?Sized>(std::marker::PhantomData<T>);

fn bar<T: ?Sized>() {}

trait Bar: FooTr<Self> /*: no longer MetaSized */ {
  //       ^^^^^^^^^^^ error!
    // real examples are `Pin` and `TypeOf::of`:
    fn foo(&self, x: Foo<Self>) {
        //        ^^^^^^^^^^^^ error!
        bar::<Self>();
        // ^^^^^^^^^^ error!
          
      
        // real examples are in core::fmt and core::iter:
        trait DoThing {
            fn do_thing() {}
        }
        
        impl<T: ?Sized> DoThing for T {
            default fn do_thing() {}
        }
        
        impl<T: Sized> DoThing for T {
            fn do_thing() {}
        }
        
        self.do_thing();
        // ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ error!
        // specialisation case is not an issue because that feature isn't stable, we can adjust core, but is a hazard with expanding trait hierarchies in future if stabilisation is ever stabilised
    }
}
}

The experimental_default_bounds work originally added Self: Trait bounds to default methods but moved away from that because it could cause region errors (source 1 / source 2). We expect the same would apply to us but we are not sure.

We decided not to do much on this, the focus remains on the Deref::Target transition as it has more uncertainty.

Sized hierarchy

The focus right now is on the "non-const" parts of the proposal, as the "const" parts are blocked on the new trait solver (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-project-goals/issues/113). Now that the types team FCP https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/144064 has completed, work can proceed to land the implementation PRs. David Wood plans to split the RFC to separate out the "non-const" parts of the proposal so it can move independently, which will enable extern types.

To that end, there are three interesting T-lang design questions to be considered.

Naming of the traits

The RFC currently proposes the following names

• Sized
• MetaSized
• PointeeSized

However, these names do not follow the "best practice" of naming the trait after the capability that it provides. As champion Niko is recommending we shift to the following names:

• Sized -- should righly be called SizeOf, but oh well, not worth changing.
• SizeOfVal -- named after the method size_of_val that you get access to.
• Pointee -- the only thing you can do is point at it.

The last trait name is already used by the (unstable) std::ptr::Pointee trait. We do not want to have these literally be the same trait because that trait adds a Metadata associated type which would be backwards incompatible; if existing code uses T::Metadata to mean <T as SomeOtherTrait>::Metadata, it could introduce ambiguity if now T: Pointee due to defaults. My proposal is to rename std::ptr::Pointee to std::ptr::PointeeMetadata for now, since that trait is unstable and the design remains under some discussion. The two traits could either be merged eventually or remain separate.

Note that PointeeMetadata would be implemented automatically by the compiler for anything that implements Pointee.

Syntax opt-in

The RFC proposes that an explicit bound like T: MetaSized disabled the default T: Sized bound. However, this gives no signal that this trait bound is "special" or different than any other trait bound. Naming conventions can help here, signalling to users that these are special traits, but that leads to constraints on naming and may not scale as we consider using this mechanism to relax other defaults as proposed in my recent blog post. One idea is to use some form of syntax, so that T: MetaSized is just a regular bound, but (for example) T: =MetaSized indicates that this bound "disables" the default Sized bound. This gives users some signal that something special is going on. This = syntax is borrowing from semver constraints, although it's not a precise match (it does not mean that T: Sized doesn't hold, after all). Other proposals would be some other sigil (T: ?MetaSized, but it means "opt out from the traits above you"; T: #MetaSized, ...) or a keyword (no idea).

To help us get a feel for it, I'll use T: =Foo throughout this post.

Implicit trait supertrait bounds, edition interaction

In Rust 2024, a trait is implicitly ?Sized which gets mapped to =SizeOfVal:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
trait Marker {} // cannot be implemented by extern types
}

This is not desirable but changing it would be backwards incompatible if traits have default methods that take advantage of this bound:

#![allow(unused)]
fn main() {
trait NotQuiteMarker {
    fn dummy(&self) {
        let s = size_of_val(self);
    }
}
}

We need to decide how to handle this. Options are

• Just change it, breakage will be small (have to test that).
• Default to =SizeOfVal but let users explicitly write =Pointee if they want that. Bad because all traits will be incompatible with extern types.
• Default to =SizeOfVal only if defaulted methods are present. Bad because it's a backwards incompatible change to add a defaulted method now.
• Default to =Pointee but add where Self: =SizeOfVal implicitly to defaulted methods. Now it's not backwards incompatible to add a new defaulted method, but it is backwards incompatible to change an existing method to have a default.

If we go with one of the latter options, Niko proposes that we should relax this in the next Edition (Rust 2026?) so that the default becomes Pointee (or maybe not even that, if we can).

Relaxing associated type bounds

Under the RFC, existing ?Sized bounds would be equivalent to =SizeOfVal. This is mostly fine but will cause problems in (at least) two specific cases: closure bounds and the Deref trait. For closures, we can adjust the bound since the associated type is unstable and due to the peculiarities of our Fn() -> T syntax. Failure to adjust the Deref bound in particular would prohibit the use of Rc<E> where E is an extern type, etc.

For deref bounds, David Wood is preparing a PR that simply changes the bound in a backwards incompatible way to assess breakage on crater. There is some chance the breakage will be small.

If the breakage proves problematic, or if we find other traits that need to be relaxed in a similar fashion, we do have the option of:

• In Rust 2024, T: Deref becomes equivalent to T: Deref<Target: SizeOfVal> unless written like T: Deref<Target: =Pointee>. We add that annotation throughout stdlib.
• In Rust 202X, we change the default, so that T: Deref does not add any special bounds, and existing Rust 2024 T: Deref is rewritten to T: Deref<Target: SizeOfVal> as needed.

Other notes

One topic that came up in discussion is that we may eventually wish to add a level "below" Pointee, perhaps Value, that signifies webassembly external values which cannot be pointed at. That is not currently under consideration but should be backwards compatible.