The other day I was thinking about the function for performing dynamic memory allocation in the C standard library, malloc. From the manual pages, If successful, the malloc() function returns a pointer to allocated memory. If there is an error, it returns a NULL pointer and sets errno to ENOMEM. One of the most common errors when using malloc is not checking for allocation failure. The allocation is not guaranteed to succeed and trying to use a NULL reference can lead to program crashes.

So a common pattern we’ll see is:

C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 int * nums = ( int * ) malloc ( sizeof ( int )); if ( nums == NULL ) { // handle error } else { * nums = 7 ; // operate on nums free ( nums ); nums = NULL ; }

Here we allocated space for an integer, cast the void* returned from malloc to an int* , compared it against the NULL pointer, then freed the allocated memory and removed the reference.

One of the big problems with the null pointer has to do with safely dereferencing it. In C, dereferencing the null pointer is undefined and usually leads to a segfault and program crash.

It can be so unsafe to work with null pointers that C. A. R. Hoare refers to them as his billion-dollar mistake:

I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years. C.A.R. Hoare, InfoQ Null References: The Billion Dollar Mistake

So how do we represent the value of nothing? With an integer, for example, your first instinct might be to use 0 to refer to no value. But 0 is a value, so how do we represent the range of integer values but also whether there is a value or not?

Rust, a systems programming language with a focus on safety and concurrency, does not have the concept of a null pointer. Instead, it has a different construct to represent the absence of value, a whole other structure called an Option . It is an enumerated type that can either be None (no value) or Some(T) (a specialization of type T).

So what the heck is an option type and how do we use it? The option type is a polymorphic type (generic type that can be specialized) that encapsulates either an empty constructor or the constructor of the original data type. Let’s take a trip down the rabbit hole to see how we use one. First, let’s look at some C++ code, and then translate it to Rust.

option.cpp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 #include <iostream> // cout, endl #include <stdlib.h> // rand #include <time.h> // time using namespace std ; // If there is a 'random error' returns NULL const int * const may_return_null () { srand ( time ( NULL )); return rand () % 2 == 1 ? new int ( 666 ) : NULL ; } int main () { // if else const int * const x = may_return_null (); if ( x ) { // switch switch ( * x ) { case 777 : cout << "Lucky Sevens" << endl ; break ; case 666 : cout << "Number of the Beast" << endl ; break ; case 42 : cout << "Meaning of Life" << endl ; break ; default : cout << "Nothing special" << endl ; break ; } } else { cout << "No value" << endl ; } // single if if ( * x == 666 ) { cout << "Did I mention that Iron Maiden is my favorite band?" << endl ; } }

Let’s step through this program line by line, starting in main.

Line 14 1 const int * const x = may_return_null ();

Here we’re calling a function that may return null, just like malloc!

Lines 8-9 1 2 srand ( time ( NULL )); return rand () % 2 == 1 ? new int ( 666 ) : NULL ;

In the body of may_return_null we seed the random number generator, generate a random number, mod it by 2 (so it can either be 0 or 1, 50-50 chance, hopefully), then either return a pointer pointing to memory allocated on the heap or the null pointer. We also use the succinct ternary operator, which gives us the power of a conditional statement in the form of a concise expression.

Line 15 1 if ( x ) {

We check if the pointer is valid, that is that it is safe to use, as NULL is falsy in a C++ conditional. If it is, then we can safely dereference it. Let’s switch on the (dereferenced) value. Notice how we need to break to explicitly prevent fall through, though 97% of the time that’s what you intend.

Lines 17-22 1 2 3 4 5 6 switch ( * x ) { case 777 : cout << "Lucky Sevens" << endl ; break ; case 666 : cout << "Number of the Beast" << endl ; break ; case 42 : cout << "Meaning of Life" << endl ; break ; default : cout << "Nothing special" << endl ; break ; }

If the pointer was null, the else branch of the conditional would execute printing a different result.

Line 24 1 cout << "No value" << endl ;

Finally in we check the value pointed to. Did I forget something here? Save that thought, we’ll come back to it.

Lines 28-30 1 2 3 if ( * x == 666 ) { cout << "Did I mention that Iron Maiden is my favorite band?" << endl ; }

Let’s see my rough translation of this program into Rust.

option.rs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 use core :: rand ; fn may_return_none () -> Option < int > { if rand :: Rng (). next () % 2 == 1 { Some ( 666 ) } else { None } } fn main () { let x : Option < int > = may_return_none (); io :: println ( match x { Some ( 777 ) => "Lucky Sevens" , Some ( 666 ) => "Number of the Beast" , Some ( 422 ) => "Meaning of Life" , Some ( _ ) => "Nothing special" , None => "No value" }); match x { Some ( 666 ) => { io :: println ( "Did I mention that Iron Maiden is my favorite Band?" ) }, _ => {} }; }

Both programs, when compiled should randomly print either:

option.rs 1 2 3 4 No Value // or Number of the Beast Did I mention that Iron Maiden is my favorite Band ?

Now let’s walk through the Rust code, starting at main and compare it to the equivalent C++ code.

option.rs Line 8 1 let x : Option < int > = may_return_none ();

option.cpp Line 14 1 const int * const x = may_return_null ();

I read this Rust code as ‘let x be type Option, specialized to type int initialized to the return value of may_return_none.’ I read the C++ as ‘x is a const pointer to a const integer initialized to the return value of may_return_none.’ It’s important to note that values and pointers in Rust default to being immutable, where as in c++ they default to being mutable, which is why we need to be explicit about their const’ness. In Rust, we could declare x as being explicitly mutable: let mut x: ... = ...; . In both, we can also leave the explicit types to be inferred by the compiler.

option.rs Line 4 1 if rand :: Rng (). next () % 2 == 1 { Some ( 666 ) } else { None }

option.cpp Lines 8-9 1 2 srand ( time ( NULL )); return rand () % 2 == 1 ? new int ( 666 ) : NULL ;

Now for the body of may_return_none . Rust does not have a ternary operator, so a single line if {} else {} block will have to do. We also don’t need parentheses around the predicate in the conditional statement. If we add them, no harm is done, as we’d just be being redundant about order of operations. There are no semicolons in this expression, nor a return statement in this function. Rust will return the last expression in a function or method if the semicolon is left off. Also there is no such thing as a conditional statement, only conditional expressions; the if is itself something that can be evaluated and assigned to a variable! We see this later in the code where we pass the evaluation of a match expression directly into a call of io::println . Rust returns the evaluation of the if expression, which is the evaluation of the branch’s block specified by the predicate, which will randomly be one of the two enumerated types of Option<int> , either an encapsulation of a int whose literal value is 666 , Some<666> , or the representation of no value, None . I believe the RNG code has changed in 0.7, this code was written in 0.6.

In Rust, to get the value out of an option type, we pattern match on it. Pattern matching is something I became familiar with through the Haskell programming language. Pattern matching is a powerful language construct that can entirely replace conditionals. In fact, the one line if expression could have been written using a match expression:

1 2 3 if rand :: Rng (). next () % 2 == 1 { Some ( 666 ) } else { None } // or match rand :: Rng (). next () % 2 { 1 => Some ( 666 ), _ => None }

The basic design pattern for accessing the value of an option type in Rust looks like:

1 2 3 4 match x { // x: Option<T> Some ( y ) => { * y }, None => {} }

The curly braces are optional for one liners (no block needed). Pattern matches have to be exhaustive. That means I have to exhaust all possibilities for what the deconstructed value could be. You can use a branch that looks like:

1 _ => ' everything else '

to catch everything else. The underscore here means “every other possible case.” So by having to use a match expression (also not a statement, as opposed to C++’s switch statement), which itself must be exhaustive, Rust forces us to handle the case where the optional type is None! This will help us again in the future. We also don’t need parentheses around the predicate for the match expression, which in this case is just a single variable, x .

In the value Some(_) , the underscore has an additional meaning here that we would not use a variable in the corresponding arm’s block. If we declared it as Some(y) we would get the warning:

1 2 3 option . rs : 14 : 9 : 14 : 11 warning : unused variable : ` y ` option . rs : 14 Some ( y ) => "Nothing special" , ^~

I hope back in my C++ code you spotted the fatal flaw. On line 28, I just dereferenced a raw pointer without checking its validity. This is a violation of memory safety.

option.cpp Line 28 1 if ( * x == 666 ) {

When running the C++ code, instead of seeing No value printed to stdout in the case of no value, a segfault occurs.

option.cpp Line 28 1 2 No value [ 1 ] 80265 segmentation fault . / option

What I should have done is something more like:

Line 28 corrected 1 if ( x && * x == 666 ) {

But, the C++ compiler let me get away with not handling the case where the pointer was invalid (even if doing nothing in the case of “handling” it). By leaving out the check for a valid pointer, I have instructed the machine to behave the same or follow the same code path with and without a reference to a valid memory location. Let’s see what happens when I don’t handle the None case by deleting line 15 or option.rs, None => "No value" :

Line 28 corrected 1 2 3 4 5 6 option . rs: 10 : 14 : 16 : 3 error: non - exhaustive patterns: None not covered option . rs: 10 io :: println ( match x { option . rs: 11 Some ( 777 ) => "Lucky Sevens" , option . rs: 12 Some ( 666 ) => "Number of the Beast" , option . rs: 13 Some ( 42 ) => "Meaning of Life" , option . rs: 14 Some ( _ ) => "Nothing special"

Not only did the compiler prevent me from generating an executable, it told me that a pattern was not exhaustive, explicitly which one, and what case that was not covered.

Coming back to encoding a lack of value for an int, we had left off that 0 is a valid value. For instance, how should we represent any other integer divided by 0, as an integer? Signed integers use a single bit to store whether their value is positive or negative, the tradeoff being the signed integers represent up to one less power of two than unsigned integers. Maybe we could use an additional bit to represent valid or invalid, but this would again cost us in terms of representable values. The IEEE 754 floating point representation has encodings for plus and minus Infinity, plus and minus 0, and two kinds of NaN. To solve the validity problem, we can use enumerated types, which in Rust occur as specializations of the Option type. It’s up to the compiler to implement either additional information for the type, or use raw null pointers. And to get the value back out of the Option type, we must handle the case where there is no valid value.

The key takeaways that I wish to convey are: