One request I see fairly often for C# is to add the concept of borrowed values. That is values which can be used but not stored beyond the invocation of a particular method. This generally comes up in the context of features which require a form of ownership semantics like stack allocation of classes, using statements, resource management, etc … Borrowing provides a way to safely use owned values without complicated ownership transfer.

This is a feature we explored while working on System C# in the Midori Project in the context of having stack like allocations. The experiment was successful and brought with it significant performance wins for the system. But the experience also taught us quite a bit about the difficulties in introducing ownership concepts into languages and frameworks that didn’t have them designed in from the start.

To help illustrate these difficulties this post is going to focus on what it would look like if borrowing were added to C# for reference types. Borrowing, the concept of use but don’t store, is a necessary pre-requisite for most forms of ownership. Lacking borrowing the more desired features, like stack allocation of classes, wouldn’t be possible.

In this post borrowed references will be denoted with a & following the type name. So Widget is a normal reference while Widget& is a borrowed reference. There is a subtyping relationship between borrowed and normal references meaning a Widget is convertible to a Widget& but not the other way around. This annotation can be applied to locals and parameters. It cannot be applied to fields, return types, or parameters which are out , in or ref .

class Widget { Widget Field ; void Example ( Widget normal , Widget & borrowed ) { borrowed = normal ; // Okay: converting Widget to Widget& borrowed = this ; // Okay: converting Widget to Widget& normal = borrowed ; // Error: can't convert Widget& to Widget Field = normal ; // Okay: converting Widget to Widget Field = this ; // Okay: converting Widget to Widget Field = borrowed ; // Error: can't convert Widget& to Widget } }

This simple system enforces that borrowed references have the desired “use but don’t store” semantics. When a value is passed to a borrowed parameter of a method, the caller can be assured that the value is no longer referenced at the completion of the method. That is it cannot be stored into a field, used as a generic argument, returned or smuggled out via a ref / out parameter.

This system is limiting though because there is no way to invoke instance members on borrowed references. The this reference in instance methods is a normal reference. Hence invoking an instance method on a borrowed reference would effectively be converting a borrowed reference to a normal one which breaks the model. To allow for method invocation we’ll let methods mark the this reference as borrowed by adding a & after the method signature. Further any method which overrides or implements a method where this is marked as borrowed must also be marked as borrowed.

abstract class Resource { // Method with a borrowed `this` public abstract void PrintStatus () &; // Normal method public abstract void Close (); } class MyResource : Resource { bool Valid ; public override void PrintStatus () & { Console . WriteLine ( $"Is valid { Valid } " ); MyResource r = this ; // Error: can't convert MyResource& to MyResource } public override void Close () { Valid = false ; } static void Example ( MyResoure normal ) { MyResource & borrowed = normal ; borrowed . PrintStatus (); // Okay normal . PrintStatus (); // Okay borrowed . Close (); // Error: can't call a normal method from a borrowed reference normal . Close (); // Okay } }

So far this all seems pretty sensible. Borrowed values have the desired “use but don’t store” semantics, have a clean integration into the type system and have a minimal syntax burden.

What happens though when we attempt to leverage this feature in the .NET SDK? Consider as an example string.Format . The parameters to this method are never stored and in practice are often a source of wasteful boxing allocations. This is a classic scenario where borrowing should bring big wins. The parameters can be marked properly as borrowed and then the runtime can safely stack allocate the boxing allocations.

class String { public void Format ( string format , object & arg ) { var strArg = arg . ToString (); FormatHelper ( format , stringArg ); } }

This example though also reveals a significant problem: the call arg.ToString is illegal because the definition object.ToString is not defined as having a borrowed this parameter. Worse is that the .NET team can’t fix this by going back and marking object.ToString as borrowed. This would be a massive compatibility break because every override of ToString would likewise need to be marked as borrowed.

This compat burden is where borrowing starts to fall down as a feature. It’s not just limited to ToString but virtually the entire surface area of .NET. Borrowed values are significantly hampered because they ….

Can’t call any methods on object GetHashCode , ToString , ReferenceEquals , GetType or Finalize

, , , or Can’t call operator== , != , etc …

, , etc … Can’t be used as generic arguments. So no List<Widget&> .

. Can’t call any method on any interface defined in the .NET SDK surface area.

The non-virtual methods could be fixed by updating their annotation in the framework to be borrowed. The virtual methods and interface definitions though can’t be changed as it would break compatibility. That means object& or any borrowed interface is by themselves is basically useless. They can’t be stored as they’re borrowed and no members can be invoked on them.

This is a pretty significant problem. It means that a good portion of the .NET Framework API parameters can never be marked as borrowed because doing so would make the values unusable. That’s true for object , interfaces or really any unsealed type where virtual methods are used. This means large sections of .NET which are perfect for ownership semantics can never take advantage of them. So much so that it brings up the question of whether this feature is worth doing. Successful uses of borrowing would require significant duplication of the .NET Framework surface area with the only real change being to add borrowing semantics to parameters. Not ideal.

This is the crux of the problem with retrofitting languages with core features like ownership. The problem isn’t just extending a 20 year old language to understand ownership, it’s also about extending a 20 year old SDK. Both present challenges that need to be overcome. In the case of ownership though it’s much more about whether the SDK could adopt it than whether it could be added to the language.

That’s not to say the version of borrowing laid out in this post is complete. It’s in fact lacking a number of features that are necessary for a good borrowing system: relative lifetime annotations, borrowed fields, returning borrowed values, etc … At the same time though those are all relatively solvable compared to the SDK compatibility issues.