Rust is not a simple language. As with any such language, it has many little tidbits of complexity that most folks aren’t aware of. Many of these tidbits are ones which may not practically matter much for everyday Rust programming, but are interesting to know. Others may be more useful. I’ve found that a lot of these aren’t documented anywhere (not that they always should be), and sometimes depend on knowledge of compiler internals or history. As a fan of programming trivia myself, I’ve decided to try writing about these things whenever I come across them. “Tribal Knowledge” shouldn’t be a thing in a programming community; and trivia is fun!

So. Box<T> . Your favorite heap allocation type that nobody uses1.

I was discussing some stuff on the rfcs repo when @burdges realized that Box<T> has a funky Deref impl.

Let’s look at it:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 #[stable(feature = "rust1" , since = "1.0.0" )] impl < T : ? Sized > Deref for Box < T > { type Target = T ; fn deref ( & self ) -> & T { &** self } } #[stable(feature = "rust1" , since = "1.0.0" )] impl < T : ? Sized > DerefMut for Box < T > { fn deref_mut ( & mut self ) -> & mut T { & mut ** self } }

Wait, what? Squints

1 2 3 fn deref ( & self ) -> & T { &** self }

The call is coming from inside the house!

In case you didn’t realize it, this deref impl returns &**self – since self is an &Box<T> , dereferencing it once will provide a Box<T> , and the second dereference will dereference the box to provide a T . We then wrap it in a reference and return it.

But wait, we are defining how a Box<T> is to be dereferenced (that’s what Deref::deref is for!), such a definition cannot itself dereference a Box<T> ! That’s infinite recursion.

And indeed. For any other type such a deref impl would recurse infinitely. If you run this code:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 use std :: ops :: Deref ; struct LolBox < T > ( T ); impl < T > Deref for LolBox < T > { type Target = T ; fn deref ( & self ) -> & T { &** self } }

the compiler will warn you:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 warning: function cannot return without recurring, #[warn(unconditional_recursion)] on by default --> <anon>:7:5 | 7 | fn deref(&self) -> &T { | ^ | note: recursive call site --> <anon>:8:10 | 8 | &**self | ^^^^^^ = help: a `loop` may express intention better if this is on purpose

Actually trying to dereference the type will lead to a stack overflow.

Clearly something is fishy here. This deref impl is similar to the deref impl for &T , or the Add impl for number types, or any other of the implementations of operators on primitive types. For example we literally define Add on two integers to be their addition. The reason these impls need to exist is so that people can still call Add::add if they need to in generic code and be able to pass integers to things with an Add bound. But the compiler knows how to use builtin operators on numbers and dereference borrowed references without these impls. But those are primitive types which are defined in the compiler, while Box<T> is just a regular smart pointer struct, right?

Turns out, Box<T> is special. It, too, is somewhat of a primitive type.

This is partly due to historical accident.

To understand this, we must look back to Ye Olde days of pre-1.0 Rust (ca 2014). Back in these days, we had none of this newfangled “stability” business. The compiler broke your code every two weeks. Of course, you wouldn’t know that because the compiler would usually crash before it could tell you that your code was broken! Sigils roamed the lands freely, and cargo was but a newborn child which was destined to eventually end the tyranny of Makefiles. People were largely happy knowing that their closures were safely boxed and their threads sufficiently green.

Back in these days, we didn’t have Box<T> , Vec<T> , or String . We had ~T , ~[T] , and ~str . The second two are not equivalent to Box<[T]> and Box<str> , even though they may look like it, they are both growable containers like Vec<T> and String . ~ conceptually meant “owned”, though IMO that caused more confusion than it was worth.

You created a box using the ~ operator, e.g. let x = ~1; . It could be dereferenced with the * operator, and autoderef worked much like it does today.

As a “primitive” type; like all primitive types, ~T was special. The compiler knew things about it. The compiler knew how to dereference it without an explicit Deref impl. In fact, the Deref traits came into existence much after ~T did. ~T never got an explicit Deref impl, though it probably should have.

Eventually, there was a move to remove sigils from the language. The box constructor ~foo was superseded by placement box syntax, which still exists in Rust nightly2. Then, the ~T type became Box<T> . ( ~[T] and ~str would also be removed, though ~str took a very confusing detour with StrBuf first).

However, Box<T> was still special. It no longer needed special syntax to be referred to or constructed, but it was still internally a special type. It didn’t even have a Deref impl yet, that came six months later, and it was implemented as &**self , exactly the same as it is today.

But why does it have to be special now? Rust had all the features it needed (allocations, ownership, overloadable deref) to implement Box<T> in pure rust in the stdlib as if it were a regular type.

Turns out that Rust didn’t. You see, because Box<T> and before it ~T were special, their dereference semantics were implemented in a different part of the code. And, these semantics were not the same as the ones for DerefImm and DerefMut , which were created for use with other smart pointers. I don’t know if the possibility of being used for ~T was considered when DerefImm / DerefMut were being implemented, or if it was a simple oversight, but Box<T> has three pieces of behavior that could not be replicated in pure Rust at the time:

box foo in a pattern would destructure a box into its contents. It’s somewhat the opposite of ref

in a pattern would destructure a box into its contents. It’s somewhat the opposite of box foo() performed placement box, so the result of foo() could be directly written to a preallocated box, reducing extraneous copies

performed placement box, so the result of could be directly written to a preallocated box, reducing extraneous copies You could move out of deref with Box<T>

The third one is the one that really gets to us here3. For a regular type, *foo will produce a temporary that must be immediately borrowed or copied. You cannot do let x = *y for a non- Copy type. This dereference operation will call DerefMut::deref_mut or Deref::deref based on how it gets borrowed. With Box<T> , you can do this:

1 2 3 let x = Box :: new ( vec ! [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]); let y = * x ; // moves the vec out into `y`, then deallocates the box // but does not call a destructor on the vec

For any other type, such an operation will produce a “cannot move out of a borrow” error.

This operation is colloquially called DerefMove , and there has been an rfc in the past for making it into a trait. I suspect that the DerefMove semantics could even have been removed from Box<T> before 1.0 (I don’t find it necessary), but people had better things to do, like fixing the million other rough edges of the language that can’t be touched after backwards compatibility is a thing.

So now we’re stuck with it. The current status is that Box<T> is still a special type in the compiler. By “special type” I don’t just mean that the compiler treats it a bit differently (this is true for any lang item), I mean that it literally is treated as a completely new kind of type, not as a struct the way it has been defined in liballoc. There’s a TON of cruft in the compiler related to this type, much of which can be removed, but some of which can’t. If we ever do get DerefMove , we should probably try removing it all again. After writing this post I’m half-convinced to try and implement an internal-use-only DerefMove and try cleaning up the code myself.

Most of this isn’t really useful to know unless you actually come across a case where you can make use of DerefMove semantics, or if you work on the compiler. But it certainly is interesting!

Next post: What is a lang item?