# Values, variables, and pointers

<!--
Part of the Carbon Language project, under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM
Exceptions. See /LICENSE for license information.
SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception
-->

<!-- toc -->

## Table of contents

-   [Values, objects, and expressions](#values-objects-and-expressions)
    -   [Expression categories](#expression-categories)
        -   [Value binding](#value-binding)
        -   [Direct initialization](#direct-initialization)
        -   [Copy initialization](#copy-initialization)
        -   [Temporary materialization](#temporary-materialization)
-   [Binding patterns and local variables with `let` and `var`](#binding-patterns-and-local-variables-with-let-and-var)
    -   [Local variables](#local-variables)
    -   [Consuming function parameters](#consuming-function-parameters)
-   [Reference expressions](#reference-expressions)
    -   [Durable reference expressions](#durable-reference-expressions)
    -   [Ephemeral reference expressions](#ephemeral-reference-expressions)
-   [Value expressions](#value-expressions)
    -   [Comparison to C++ parameters](#comparison-to-c-parameters)
    -   [Polymorphic types](#polymorphic-types)
    -   [Interop with C++ `const &` and `const` methods](#interop-with-c-const--and-const-methods)
    -   [Escape hatches for value addresses in Carbon](#escape-hatches-for-value-addresses-in-carbon)
-   [Initializing expressions](#initializing-expressions)
    -   [Function calls and returns](#function-calls-and-returns)
        -   [Deferred initialization from values and references](#deferred-initialization-from-values-and-references)
        -   [Declared `returned` variable](#declared-returned-variable)
-   [Pointers](#pointers)
    -   [Reference types](#reference-types)
    -   [Pointer syntax](#pointer-syntax)
    -   [Dereferencing customization](#dereferencing-customization)
-   [`const`-qualified types](#const-qualified-types)
-   [Lifetime overloading](#lifetime-overloading)
-   [Value representation and customization](#value-representation-and-customization)
-   [Alternatives considered](#alternatives-considered)
-   [References](#references)

<!-- tocstop -->

## Values, objects, and expressions

Carbon has both abstract _values_ and concrete _objects_. Carbon _values_ are
things like `42`, `true`, and `i32` (a type value). Carbon _objects_ have
_storage_ where values can be read and written. Storage also allows taking the
address of an object in memory in Carbon.

Both objects and values can be nested within each other. For example
`(true, true)` is both a value and also contains two sub-values. When a
two-tuple is stored somewhere, it is both a tuple-typed object and contains two
subobjects.

These terms are important components in the describing the semantics of Carbon
code, but they aren't sufficient. We also need to explicitly and precisely talk
about the Carbon _expressions_ that produce or reference values and objects.
Categorizing the expressions themselves allows us to be more precise and
articulate important differences not captured without looking at the expression
itself.

### Expression categories

There are three expression categories in Carbon:

-   [_Value expressions_](#value-expressions) produce abstract, read-only
    _values_ that cannot be modified or have their address taken.
-   [_Reference expressions_](#reference-expressions) refer to _objects_ with
    _storage_ where a value may be read or written and the object's address can
    be taken.
-   [_Initializing expressions_](#initializing-expressions) require storage to
    be provided implicitly when evaluating the expression. The expression then
    initializes an object in that storage. These are used to model function
    returns, which can construct the returned value directly in the caller's
    storage.

Expressions in one category can be converted to any other category when needed.
The primitive conversion steps used are:

-   [_Value binding_](#value-binding) forms a value expression from the current
    value of the object referenced by a reference expression.
-   [_Direct initialization_](#direct-initialization) converts a value
    expression into an initializing expression.
-   [_Copy initialization_](#copy-initialization) converts a reference
    expression into an initializing expression.
-   [_Temporary materialization_](#temporary-materialization) converts an
    initializing expression into a reference expression.

These conversion steps combine to provide the transitive conversion table:

|               From: | value                     | reference | initializing       |
| ------------------: | ------------------------- | --------- | ------------------ |
|        to **value** | ==                        | bind      | materialize + bind |
|    to **reference** | direct init + materialize | ==        | materialize        |
| to **initializing** | direct init               | copy init | ==                 |

Reference expressions formed through temporary materialization are called
[_ephemeral reference expressions_](#ephemeral-reference-expressions) and have
restrictions on how they are used. In contrast, reference expressions that refer
to declared storage are called
[_durable reference expressions_](#durable-reference-expressions). Beyond the
restrictions on what is valid, there is no distinction in their behavior or
semantics.

#### Value binding

We call forming a value expression from a reference expression _value binding_.
This forms a value expression that will evaluate to the value of the object in
the referenced storage of the reference expression. It may do this by eagerly
reading that value into a machine register, lazily reading that value on-demand
into a machine register, or in some other way modeling that abstract value.

See the [value expressions](#value-expressions) section for more details on the
semantics of value expressions.

#### Direct initialization

This is the first way we have of initializing storage of an object. There may
not be storage for the source of this initialization, as the value expression
used for the initialization may be in a machine register or simply be abstractly
modeled like a source literal. A canonical example here is zeroing an object.

#### Copy initialization

This initializes storage for an object based on some other object which already
has initialized storage. A classic example here are types which can be copied
trivially and where this is implemented as a `memcpy` of their underlying bytes.

#### Temporary materialization

We use temporary materialization when we need to initialize an object by way of
storage, but weren't provided dedicate storage and can simply bind the result to
a value afterward.

> **Open question:** The lifetimes of temporaries is not yet specified.

## Binding patterns and local variables with `let` and `var`

A [_value binding pattern_](/docs/design/README.md#binding-patterns) introduces
a name that is a [_value expression_](#value-expressions) and is called a _value
binding_. This is the desired default for many pattern contexts, especially
function parameters. Values are a good model for "input" function parameters
which are the dominant and default style of function parameters:

```carbon
fn Sum(x: i32, y: i32) -> i32 {
  // `x` and `y` are value expressions here. We can use their value, but not
  // modify them or take their address.
  return x + y;
}
```

Value bindings require the matched expression to be a _value expression_,
converting it into one as necessary.

A _variable pattern_ is introduced with the `var` keyword. It declares storage
for a new object, and initializes it from the matched expression, which must be
an initializing expression.

A _reference binding pattern_ is a binding pattern that is nested under a `var`
pattern. It introduces a name called a _reference binding_ that is a
[durable reference expression](#durable-reference-expressions) to an object
within the variable pattern's storage.

```carbon
fn MutateThing(ptr: i64*);

fn Example() {
  // `1` starts as a value expression, which is what a value binding expects.
  let x: i64 = 1;

  // `2` also starts as a value expression, but the variable pattern requires it
  // to be converted to an initializing expression by using the value `2` to
  // initialize the provided variable storage that `y` will refer to.
  var y: i64 = 2;

  // Allowed to take the address and mutate `y` as it is a durable reference
  // expression.
  MutateThing(&y);

  // ❌ This would be an error though due to trying to take the address of the
  // value expression `x`.
  MutateThing(&x);
}
```

### Local variables

A local binding pattern can be introduced with either the `let` or `var`
keyword. The `let` introducer begins a value pattern which works the same as the
default patterns in other contexts. The `var` introducer immediately begins a
variable pattern.

-   `let` _identifier_`:` _( expression |_ `auto` _)_ `=` _value_`;`
-   `var` _identifier_`:` _( expression |_ `auto` _) [_ `=` _value ]_`;`

These are just simple examples of binding patterns used directly in local
declarations. Local `let` and `var` declarations build on Carbon's general
[pattern matching](/docs/design/pattern_matching.md) design. `var` declarations
implicitly start off within a `var` pattern. `let` declarations introduce
patterns that bind values by default, the same as function parameters and most
other pattern contexts.

The general pattern matching model also allows nesting `var` sub-patterns within
a larger pattern that defaults to matching values. For example, we can combine
the two local declarations above into one destructuring declaration with an
inner `var` pattern here:

```carbon
fn DestructuringExample() {
  // Both `1` and `2` start as value expressions. The `x` binding directly
  // matches `1`. For `2`, the variable pattern requires it to be converted to
  // an initializing expression by using the value `2` to initialize the
  // provided variable storage that `y` will refer to.
  let (x: i64, var y: i64) = (1, 2);

  // Just like above, we can take the address and mutate `y`:
  MutateThing(&y);

  // ❌ And this remains an error:
  MutateThing(&x);
}
```

If `auto` is used in place of the type for a local binding pattern,
[type inference](type_inference.md) is used to automatically determine the
variable's type.

These local bindings introduce names scoped to the code block in which they
occur, which will typically be marked by an open brace (`{`) and close brace
(`}`).

### Consuming function parameters

Just as part of a `let` binding can use a `var` prefix to become a variable
pattern and bind names that will form reference expressions to the variable's
storage, so can function parameters:

```carbon
fn Consume(var x: SomeData) {
  // We can mutate and use variable that `x` refers to here.
}
```

This allows us to model an important special case of function inputs -- those
that are _consumed_ by the function, either through local processing or being
moved into some persistent storage. Marking these in the pattern and thus
signature of the function changes the expression category required for arguments
in the caller. These arguments are required to be _initializing expressions_,
potentially being converted into such an expression if necessary, that directly
initialize storage dedicated-to and owned-by the function parameter.

This pattern serves the same purpose as C++'s pass-by-value when used with types
that have non-trivial resources attached to pass ownership into the function and
consume the resource. But rather than that being the seeming _default_, Carbon
makes this a use case that requires a special marking on the declaration.

## Reference expressions

_Reference expressions_ refer to _objects_ with _storage_ where a value may be
read or written and the object's address can be taken.

There are two sub-categories of reference expressions: _durable_ and
_ephemeral_. These refine the _lifetime_ of the underlying storage and provide
safety restrictions reflecting that lifetime.

### Durable reference expressions

_Durable reference expressions_ are those where the object's storage outlives
the full expression and the address could be meaningfully propagated out of it
as well.

There are two contexts that require a durable reference expression in Carbon:

-   [Assignment statements](/docs/design/assignment.md) require the
    left-hand-side of the `=` to be a durable reference. This stronger
    requirement is enforced before the expression is rewritten to dispatch into
    the `Carbon.Assign.Op` interface method.
-   [Address-of expressions](#pointer-syntax) require their operand to be a
    durable reference and compute the address of the referenced object.

There are several kinds of expressions that produce durable references in
Carbon:

-   Names of objects introduced with a
    [reference binding](#binding-patterns-and-local-variables-with-let-and-var):
    `x`
-   Dereferenced [pointers](#pointers): `*p`
-   Names of subobjects through member access to some other durable reference
    expression: `x.member` or `p->member`
-   [Indexing](/docs/design/expressions/indexing.md) into a type similar to
    C++'s `std::span` that implements `IndirectIndexWith`, or indexing into any
    type with a durable reference expression such as `local_array[i]`.

Durable reference expressions can only be produced _directly_ by one of these
expressions. They are never produced by converting one of the other expression
categories into a reference expression.

### Ephemeral reference expressions

We call the reference expressions formed through
[temporary materialization](#temporary-materialization) _ephemeral reference
expressions_. They still refer to an object with storage, but it may be storage
that will not outlive the full expression. Because the storage is only
temporary, we impose restrictions on where these reference expressions can be
used: their address can only be taken implicitly as part of a method call whose
`self` parameter is marked with the `ref` specifier.

**Future work:** The current design allows directly requiring an ephemeral
reference for `ref`-methods because this replicates the flexibility in C++ --
very few C++ methods are L-value-ref-qualified which would have a similar effect
to `ref`-methods requiring a durable reference expression. This is leveraged
frequently in C++ for builder APIs and other patterns. However, Carbon provides
more tools in this space than C++ already, and so it may be worth evaluating
whether we can switch `ref`-methods to the same restrictions as assignment and
`&`. Temporaries would never have their address escaped (in a safe way) in that
world and there would be fewer different kinds of entities. But this is reserved
for future work as we should be very careful about the expressivity hit being
tolerable both for native-Carbon API design and for migrated C++ code.

## Value expressions

A value cannot be mutated, cannot have its address taken, and may not have
storage at all or a stable address of storage. Values are abstract constructs
like function input parameters and constants. They can be formed in two ways --
a literal expression like `42`, or by reading the value of some stored object.

A core goal of values in Carbon is to provide a single model that can get both
the efficiency of passing by value when working with small types such as those
that fit into a machine register, but also the efficiency of minimal copies when
working with types where a copy would require extra allocations or other costly
resources. This directly helps programmers by providing a simpler model to
select the mechanism of passing function inputs. But it is also important to
enable generic code that needs a single type model that will have consistently
good performance.

When forming a value expression from a reference expression, Carbon
[binds](#value-binding) the referenced object to that value expression. This
allows immediately reading from the object's storage into a machine register or
a copy if desired, but does not require that. The read of the underlying object
can also be deferred until the value expression itself is used. Once an object
is bound to a value expression in this way, any mutation to the object or its
storage ends the lifetime of the value binding, and makes any use of the value
expression an error.

> Note: this is _not_ intended to ever become "undefined behavior", but instead
> just "erroneous". We want to be able to detect and report such code as having
> a bug, but do not want unbounded UB and are not aware of important
> optimizations that this would inhibit.
>
> _Open issue:_ We need a common definition of erroneous behavior that we can
> use here (and elsewhere). Once we have that, we should cite it here.

> Note: this restriction is also **experimental** -- we may want to strengthen
> or weaken it based on experience, especially with C++ interop and a more
> complete memory safety story.

Even with these restrictions, we expect to make values in Carbon useful in
roughly the same places as `const &`s in C++, but with added efficiency in the
case where the values can usefully be kept in machine registers. We also
specifically encourage a mental model of a `const &` with extra efficiency.

The actual _representation_ of a value when bound, especially across function
boundaries, is [customizable](#value-representation-and-customization) by the
type. The defaults are based around preserving the baseline efficiency of C++'s
`const &`, but potentially reading the value when that would be both correct and
reliably more efficient, such as into a machine register.

### Comparison to C++ parameters

While these are called "values" in Carbon, they are not related to "by-value"
parameters as they exist in C++. The semantics of C++'s by-value parameters are
defined to create a new local copy of the argument, although it may move into
this copy.

Carbon's values are much closer to a `const &` in C++ with extra restrictions
such as allowing copies under "as-if" and preventing taking the address.
Combined, these restrictions allow implementation strategies such as in-register
parameters.

### Polymorphic types

Value expressions and value bindings can be used with
[polymorphic types](/docs/design/classes.md#inheritance), for example:

```carbon
base class MyBase { ... }

fn UseBase(b: MyBase) { ... }

class Derived {
  extend base: MyBase;
  ...
}

fn PassDerived() {
  var d: Derived = ...;
  // Allowed to pass `d` here:
  UseBase(d);
}
```

This is still allowed to create a copy or to move, but it must not _slice_. Even
if a copy is created, it must be a `Derived` object, even though this may limit
the available implementation strategies.

> **Future work:** The interaction between a
> [custom value representation](#value-representation-and-customization) and a
> value expression used with a polymorphic type needs to be fully captured.
> Either it needs to restrict to a `const ref` style representation (to prevent
> slicing) or it needs to have a model for the semantics when a different value
> representation is used.

### Interop with C++ `const &` and `const` methods

While value expressions cannot have their address taken in Carbon, they should
be interoperable with C++ `const &`s and C++ `const`-qualified methods. This
will in-effect "pin" some object (potentially a copy or temporary) into memory
and allow C++ to take its address. Without supporting this, values would likely
create an untenable interop ergonomic barrier. However, this does create some
additional constraints on value expressions and a way that their addresses can
escape unexpectedly.

Despite interop requiring an address to implement, C++ allows `const &`
parameters to bind to temporary objects where that address doesn't have much
meaning and might not be valid once the called function returns. As a
consequence, we don't expect C++ interfaces using a `const &` to misbehave in
practice.

> **Future work:** when a type customizes its
> [value representation](#value-representation-and-customization), as currently
> specified this will break the use of `const &` C++ APIs with such a value. We
> should extend the rules around value representation customization to require
> that either the representation type can be converted to (a copy) of the
> customized type, or implements an interop-specific interface to compute a
> `const` pointer to the original object used to form the representation object.
> This will allow custom representations to either create copies for interop or
> retain a pointer to the original object and expose that for interop as
> desired.

Another risk is exposing Carbon's value expressions to `const &` parameters in
this way, as C++ allows casting away `const`. However, in the absence of
`mutable` members, casting away `const` does not make it safe to _mutate_
through a `const &` parameter (or a `const`-qualified method). C++ allows
`const &` parameters and `const` member functions to access objects that are
_declared_ `const`. These objects cannot be mutated, even if `const` is removed,
exactly the same as Carbon value expressions. In fact, these kinds of mutations
[break in real implementations](https://cpp.compiler-explorer.com/z/KMhTondaK).
The result is that Carbon's value expressions will work similarly to
`const`-declared objects in C++, and will interop with C++ code similarly well.

### Escape hatches for value addresses in Carbon

**Open question:** It may be necessary to provide some amount of escape hatch
for taking the address of values. The
[C++ interop](#interop-with-c-const--and-const-methods) above already takes
their address functionally. Currently, this is the extent of an escape hatch to
the restrictions on values.

If a further escape hatch is needed, this kind of fundamental weakening of the
semantic model would be a good case for some syntactic marker like Rust's
`unsafe`, although rather than a region, it would seem better to tie it directly
to the operation in question. For example:

```carbon
class S {
  fn ValueMemberFunction[self: Self]();
  fn RefMemberFunction[ref self: const Self]();
}

fn F(s_value: S) {
  // This is fine.
  s_value.ValueMemberFunction();

  // This requires an unsafe marker in the syntax.
  s_value.unsafe RefMemberFunction();
}
```

The specific tradeoff here is covered in a proposal
[alternative](/proposals/p2006.md#value-expression-escape-hatches).

## Initializing expressions

Storage in Carbon is initialized using _initializing expressions_. Their
evaluation produces an initialized object in the storage, although that object
may still be _unformed_.

**Future work:** More details on initialization and unformed objects should be
added to the design from the proposal
[#257](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/257), see
[#1993](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1993). When added,
it should be linked from here for the details on the initialization semantics
specifically.

The simplest form of initializing expressions are value or durable reference
expressions that are converted into an initializing expression. Value
expressions are written directly into the storage to form a new object.
Reference expressions have the object they refer to copied into a new object in
the provided storage.

**Future work:** The design should be expanded to fully cover how copying is
managed and linked to from here.

The first place where an initializing expression is _required_ is to satisfy
[_variable patterns_](#binding-patterns-and-local-variables-with-let-and-var).
These require the expression they match to be an initializing expression for the
storage they create. The simplest example is the expression after the `=` in a
local `var` declaration.

The next place where a Carbon expression requires an initializing expression is
the expression operand to `return` statements. We expand more completely on how
return statements interact with expressions, values, objects, and storage
[below](#function-calls-and-returns).

The last path that requires forming an initializing expression in Carbon is when
attempting to convert a non-reference expression into an ephemeral reference
expression: the expression is first converted to an initializing expression if
necessary, and then temporary storage is materialized to act as its output, and
as the referent of the resulting ephemeral reference expression.

### Function calls and returns

Function calls in Carbon are modeled directly as initializing expressions --
they require storage as an input and when evaluated cause that storage to be
initialized with an object. This means that when a function call is used to
initialize some variable pattern as here:

```carbon
fn CreateMyObject() -> MyType {
  return <return-expression>;
}

var x: MyType = CreateMyObject();
```

The `<return-expression>` in the `return` statement actually initializes the
storage provided for `x`. There is no "copy" or other step.

> **Future work:** Extend this to also apply when a variable pattern is
> initialized from a tuple/struct literal, or a tuple/struct pattern with
> variable subpatterns is initialized from a single function call.

All `return` statement expressions are required to be initializing expressions
and in fact initialize the storage provided to the function's call expression.
This in turn causes the property to hold _transitively_ across an arbitrary
number of function calls and returns. The storage is forwarded at each stage and
initialized exactly once.

Note that functions without a specified return type work exactly the same as
functions with a `()` return type for the purpose of expression categories.

#### Deferred initialization from values and references

TODO: This section needs to be updated to reflect the addition of `-> val`
returns in [proposal #5434](/proposals/p5434.md). This section could be replaced
by a statement that initializing returns may be replaced by value returns when
that is safe and correct, moving much of this content into a description of how
value returns works.

Carbon also makes the evaluation of function calls and return statements tightly
linked in order to enable more efficiency improvements. It allows the actual
initialization performed by the `return` statement with its expression to be
deferred from within the body of the function to the caller initializer
expression if it can simply propagate a value or reference expression to the
caller that is guaranteed to be alive and available to the caller.

Consider the following code:

```carbon
fn SelectSecond(first: Point, second: Point, third: Point) -> Point {
  return second;
}

fn UsePoint(p: Point);

fn F(p1: Point, p2: Point) {
  UsePoint(SelectSecond(p2, p1, p2));
}
```

The call to `SelectSecond` must provide storage for a `Point` that can be
initialized. However, Carbon allows an implementation of the actual
`SelectSecond` function to not initialize this storage when it reaches
`return second`. The expression `second` is a name bound to the call's argument
value expression, and that value expression is necessarily valid in the caller.
Carbon in this case allows the implementation to merely communicate that the
returned expression is a name bound to a specific value expression argument to
the call, and the caller _if necessary_ should initialize the temporary storage.
This in turn allows the caller `F` to recognize that the value expression
argument (`p1`) is already valid to pass as the argument to `UsePoint` without
initializing the temporary storage from it and reading it back out of that
storage.

None of this impacts the type system and so an implementation can freely select
specific strategies here based on concrete types without harming generic code.
Even if generics were to be implemented without monomorphization, for example
dynamic dispatch of object-safe interfaces, there is a conservatively correct
strategy that will work for any type.

This freedom mirrors that of [input values](#value-expressions) where might be
implemented as either a reference or a copy without breaking genericity. Here
too, many small types will not need to be lazy and simply eagerly initialize the
temporary which is implemented as an actual machine register. But for large
types or ones with associated allocated storage, this can reliably avoid
extraneous memory allocations and other costs.

Note that this flexibility doesn't avoid the call expression materializing
temporary storage and providing it to the function. Whether the function needs
this storage is an implementation detail. It simply allows deferring an
important case of initializing that storage from a value or reference expression
already available in the caller to the caller so that it can identify cases
where that initialization is not necessary.

**References:** This addresses an issue-for-leads about
[reducing the potential copies incurred by returns](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/828).

#### Declared `returned` variable

The model of initialization of returns also facilitates the use of
[`returned var` declarations](control_flow/return.md#returned-var). These
directly observe the storage provided for initialization of a function's return.

## Pointers

Pointers in Carbon are the primary mechanism for _indirect access_ to storage
containing some value. Dereferencing a pointer is one of the primary ways to
form a [_durable reference expression_](#durable-reference-expressions).

Carbon pointers are heavily restricted compared to C++ pointers -- they cannot
be null and they cannot be indexed or have pointer arithmetic performed on them.
In some ways, this makes them more similar to references in C++, but they retain
the essential aspect of a pointer that they syntactically distinguish between
the point*er* and the point*ee*.

Carbon will still have mechanisms to achieve the equivalent behaviors as C++
pointers. Optional pointers are expected to serve nullable use cases. Slice or
view style types are expected to provide access to indexable regions. And even
raw pointer arithmetic is expected to be provided at some point, but through
specialized constructs given the specialized nature of these operations.

**Future work:** Add explicit designs for these use cases and link to them here.

### Reference types

TODO: This section needs to be updated to reflect
[proposal #5434](/proposals/p5434.md).

Unlike C++, Carbon does not currently have reference types. The only form of
indirect access are pointers. There are a few aspects to this decision that need
to be separated carefully from each other as the motivations and considerations
are different.

First, Carbon has only a single fundamental construct for indirection because
this gives it a single point that needs extension and configuration if and when
we want to add more powerful controls to the indirect type system such as
lifetime annotations or other safety or optimization mechanisms. The designs
attempts to identify a single, core indirection tool and then layer other
related use cases on top. This is motivated by keeping the language scalable as
it evolves and reducing the huge explosion of complexity that C++ sees due to
having a large space here. For example, when there are N > 1 ways to express
indirection equivalently and APIs want to accept any one of them across M
different parameters they can end up with N \* M combinations.

Second, with pointers, Carbon's indirection mechanism retains the ability to
refer distinctly to the point*er* and the point*ee* when needed. This ends up
critical for supporting rebinding and so without this property more permutations
of indirection would likely emerge.

Third, Carbon doesn't provide a straightforward way to avoid the syntactic
distinction between indirect access and direct access.

For a full discussion of the tradeoffs of these design decisions, see the
alternatives considered section of [P2006]:

-   [References in addition to pointers](/proposals/p2006.md#references-in-addition-to-pointers)
-   [Syntax-free or automatic dereferencing](/proposals/p2006.md#syntax-free-or-automatic-dereferencing)
-   [Exclusively using references](/proposals/p2006.md#exclusively-using-references)

### Pointer syntax

The type of a pointer to a type `T` is written with a postfix `*` as in `T*`.
Dereferencing a pointer is a [_reference expression_] and is written with a prefix
`*` as in `*p`:

```carbon
var i: i32 = 42;
var p: i32* = &i;

// Form a reference expression `*p` and assign `13` to the referenced storage.
*p = 13;
```

This syntax is chosen specifically to remain as similar as possible to C++
pointer types as they are commonly written in code and are expected to be
extremely common and a key anchor of syntactic similarity between the languages.
The different alternatives and tradeoffs for this syntax issue were discussed
extensively in [#523] and are summarized in the
[proposal](/proposals/p2006.md#alternative-pointer-syntaxes).

[#523]: https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/523

Carbon also supports an infix `->` operation, much like C++. However, Carbon
directly defines this as an exact rewrite to `*` and `.` so that `p->member`
becomes `(*p).member` for example. This means there is no overloaded or
customizable `->` operator in Carbon the way there is in C++. Instead,
customizing the behavior of `*p` in turn customizes the behavior of `p->`.

**Future work:** As [#523] discusses, one of the primary challenges of the C++
syntax is the composition of a prefix dereference operation and other postfix or
infix operations, especially when chained together such as a classic C++
frustrations of mixes of dereference and indexing: `(*(*p)[42])[13]`. Where
these compositions are sufficiently common to create ergonomic problems, the
plan is to introduce custom syntax analogous to `->` that rewrites down to the
grouped dereference. However, nothing beyond `->` itself is currently provided.
Extending this, including the exact design and scope of extension desired, is a
future work area.

### Dereferencing customization

Carbon should support user-defined pointer-like types such as _smart pointers_
using a similar pattern as operator overloading or other expression syntax. That
is, it should rewrite the expression into a member function call on an
interface. Types can then implement this interface to expose pointer-like
_user-defined dereference_ syntax.

The interface might look like:

```carbon
interface Pointer {
  let ValueT:! Type;
  fn Dereference[self: Self]() -> ValueT*;
}
```

Here is an example using a hypothetical `TaggedPtr` that carries some extra
integer tag next to the pointer it emulates:

```carbon
class TaggedPtr(T:! Type) {
  var tag: Int32;
  var ptr: T*;
}
external impl [T:! Type] TaggedPtr(T) as Pointer {
  let ValueT:! T;
  fn Dereference[self: Self]() -> T* { return self.ptr; }
}

fn Test(arg: TaggedPtr(T), dest: TaggedPtr(TaggedPtr(T))) {
  **dest = *arg;
  *dest = arg;
}
```

There is one tricky aspect of this. The function in the interface which
implements a pointer-like dereference must return a raw pointer which the
language then actually dereferences to form a reference expression similar to
that formed by `var` declarations. This interface is implemented for normal
pointers as a no-op:

```carbon
impl [T:! Type] T* as Pointer {
  let ValueT:! Type = T;
  fn Dereference[self: Self]() -> T* { return self; }
}
```

Dereference expressions such as `*x` are syntactically rewritten to use this
interface to get a raw pointer and then that raw pointer is dereferenced. If we
imagine this language level dereference to form a reference expression as a
unary `deref` operator, then `(*x)` becomes
`(deref (x.(Pointer.Dereference)()))`.

Carbon will also use a simple syntactic rewrite for implementing `x->Method()`
as `(*x).Method()` without separate or different customization.

## `const`-qualified types

Carbon provides the ability to qualify a type `T` with the keyword `const` to
get a `const`-qualified type: `const T`. This is exclusively an API-subsetting
feature in Carbon -- for more fundamentally "immutable" use cases, value
expressions and bindings should be used instead. Pointers to `const`-qualified
types in Carbon provide access to an object with an API subset that can help
model important requirements like ensuring usage is exclusively by way of a
_thread-safe_ interface subset of an otherwise _thread-compatible_ type.

Note that `const T` is a type qualification and is generally orthogonal to
expression categories or what form of pattern is used, including for object
parameters. Notionally, it can occur both with `ref` and value object
parameters. However, on value patterns, it is redundant as there is no
meaningful distinction between a value expression of type `T` and type
`const T`. For example, given a type and methods:

```carbon
class X {
  fn Method[self: Self]();
  fn ConstMethod[self: const Self]();
  fn RefMethod[ref self: Self]();
  fn RefConstMethod[ref self: const Self]();
}
```

The methods can be called on different kinds of expressions according to the
following table:

| Expression category: | `let x: X` <br/> (value) | `let x: const X` <br/> (const value) | `var x: X` <br/> (reference) | `var x: const X` <br/> (const reference) |
| -------------------: | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- |
|        `x.Method();` | ✅                       | ✅                                   | ✅                           | ✅                                       |
|   `x.ConstMethod();` | ✅                       | ✅                                   | ✅                           | ✅                                       |
|     `x.RefMethod();` | ❌                       | ❌                                   | ✅                           | ❌                                       |
| `x.RefConstMethod()` | ❌                       | ❌                                   | ✅                           | ✅                                       |

The `const T` type has the same representation as `T` with the same field names,
but all of its field types are also `const`-qualified. Other than fields, all
other members `T` are also members of `const T`, and impl lookup ignores the
`const` qualification. There is an implicit conversion from `T` to `const T`,
but not the reverse. Conversion of reference expressions to value expressions is
defined in terms of `const T` reference expressions to `T` value expressions.

It is expected that `const T` will largely occur as part of a
[pointer](#pointers), as the express purpose is to form reference expressions.
The precedence rules are even designed for this common case, `const T*` means
`(const T)*`, or a pointer-to-const. Carbon will support conversions between
pointers to `const`-qualified types that follow the same rules as used in C++ to
avoid inadvertent loss of `const`-qualification.

The syntax details of `const` are also covered in the
[type operators](/docs/design/expressions/type_operators.md) documentation.

## Lifetime overloading

One potential use case that is not obviously or fully addressed by these designs
in Carbon is overloading function calls by observing the lifetime of arguments.
The use case here would be selecting different implementation strategies for the
same function or operation based on whether an argument lifetime happens to be
ending and viable to move-from.

Carbon currently intentionally leaves this use case unaddressed. There is a
fundamental scaling problem in this style of overloading: it creates a
combinatorial explosion of possible overloads similar to other permutations of
indirection models. Consider a function with N parameters that would benefit
from lifetime overloading. If each parameter benefits _independently_ from the
others, as is commonly the case, we would need 2<sup>N</sup> overloads to
express all the possibilities.

Carbon will initially see if code can be designed without this facility. Some of
the tools needed to avoid it are suggested above such as the
[consuming](#consuming-function-parameters) input pattern. But it is possible
that more will be needed in practice. It would be good to identify the specific
and realistic Carbon code patterns that cannot be expressed with the tools in
this proposal in order to motivate a minimal extension. Some candidates based on
functionality already proposed here or for [classes](/docs/design/classes.md):

-   Allow overloading between `ref self` and `self` in methods. This is among
    the most appealing as it _doesn't_ have the combinatorial explosion. But it
    is also very limited as it only applies to the implicit object parameter.
-   Allow overloading between `var` and non-`var` parameters.
-   Expand the `ref` technique from object parameters to all parameters, and
    allow overloading based on it.

Perhaps more options will emerge as well. Again, the goal isn't to completely
preclude pursuing this direction, but instead to try to ensure it is only
pursued based on a real and concrete need, and the minimal extension is adopted.

## Value representation and customization

The representation of a value expression is especially important because it
forms the calling convention used for the vast majority of function parameters
-- function inputs. Given this importance, it's important that it is predictable
and customizable by the value's type. Similarly, while Carbon code must be
correct with either a copy or a reference-based implementation, we want which
implementation strategy is used to be a predictable and customizable property of
the type of a value.

A type can optionally control its value representation using a custom syntax
similar to customizing its [destructor](/docs/design/classes.md#destructors).
This syntax sets the representation to some type uses a keyword `value_rep` and
can appear where a member declaration would be valid within the type:

```carbon
class SomeType {
  value_rep = RepresentationType;
}
```

**Open question:** The syntax for this is just placeholder, using a placeholder
keyword. It isn't final at all and likely will need to change to read well.

The provided representation type must be one of the following:

-   `const Self` -- this forces the use of a _copy_ of the object.
-   `const ref` -- this forces the use of a [_pointer_](#pointers) to the
    original object, but with the `const` API subset.
-   A custom type that is not `Self`, `const Self`, or a pointer to either.

If the representation is `const Self` or `const ref`, then the type fields will
be accessible as [_value expressions_](#value-expressions) using the normal
member access syntax for value expressions of a type. These will be implemented
by either accessing a copy of the object in the non-pointer case or a pointer to
the original object in the pointer case. A representation of `const Self`
requires copying to be valid for the type. This provides the builtin
functionality but allows explicitly controlling which representation should be
used.

If no customization is provided, the implementation will select one based on a
set of heuristics. Some examples:

-   Non-copyable types and polymorphic types would use a `const ref`.
-   Small objects that are trivially copied in a machine register would use
    `const Self`.

When a custom type is provided, it must not be `Self`, `const Self`, or a
pointer to either. The type provided will be used on function call boundaries
and as the implementation representation for value bindings and other value
expressions referencing an object of the type. A specifier of `value_rep = T;`
will require that the type containing that specifier satisfies the constraint
`impls ReferenceImplicitAs where .T = T` using the following interface:

```carbon
interface ReferenceImplicitAs {
  let T:! type;
  fn Convert[ref self: const Self]() -> T;
}
```

Converting a reference expression into a value expression for such a type calls
this customization point to form a representation object from the original
reference expression.

When using a custom representation type in this way, no fields are accessible
through a value expression. Instead, only methods can be called using member
access, as they simply bind the value expression to the `self` parameter.
However, one important method can be called -- `.(ImplicitAs(T).Convert)()`.
This implicitly converting a value expression for the type into its custom
representation type. The customization of the representation above and
`impls ReferenceImplicitAs where .T = T` causes the class to have a builtin
`impl as ImplicitAs(T)` which converts to the representation type as a no-op,
exposing the object created by calling `ReferenceImplicitAs.Convert` on the
original reference expression, and preserved as a representation of the value
expression.

Here is a more complete example of code using these features:

```carbon
class StringView {
  private var data_ptr: Char*;
  private var size: i64;

  fn Make(data_ptr: Char*, size: i64) -> StringView {
    return {.data_ptr = data_ptr, .size = size};
  }

  // A typical readonly view of a string API...
  fn ExampleMethod[self: Self]() { ... }
}

class String {
  // Customize the value representation to be `StringView`.
  value_rep = StringView;

  private var data_ptr: Char*;
  private var size: i64;

  private var capacity: i64;

  impl as ReferenceImplicitAs where .T = StringView {
    fn Op[ref self: const Self]() -> StringView {
      // Because this is called on the String object prior to it becoming
      // a value, we can access an SSO buffer or other interior pointers
      // of `self`.
      return StringView.Make(self.data_ptr, self.size);
    }
  }

  // We can directly declare methods that take `self` as a `StringView` which
  // will cause the caller to implicitly convert value expressions to
  // `StringView` prior to calling.
  fn ExampleMethod[self: StringView]() { self.ExampleMethod(); }

  // Or we can use a value binding for `self` much like normal, but the
  // implementation will be constrained because of the custom value rep.
  fn ExampleMethod2[self: String]() {
    // Error due to custom value rep:
    self.data_ptr;

    // Fine, this uses the builtin `ImplicitAs(StringView)`.
    (self as StringView).ExampleMethod();
  }

  // Note that even though the `Self` type is `const` qualified here, this
  // cannot be called on a `String` value! That would require us to convert to a
  // `StringView` that does not track the extra data member.
  fn Capacity[ref self: const Self]() -> i64 {
    return self.capacity;
  }
}
```

It is important to note that the _representation_ type of a value expression is
just its representation and does not impact the name lookup or type. Name lookup
and `impl` search occur for the same type regardless of the expression category.
But once a particular method or function is selected, an implicit conversion can
occur from the original type to the representation type as part of the parameter
or receiver type. In fact, this conversion is the _only_ operation that can
occur for a value whose type has a customized value representation.

The example above also demonstrates the fundamental tradeoff made by customizing
the value representation of a type in this way. While it provides a great deal
of control, it may result in some surprising limitations. Above, a method that
is classically available on a C++ `const std::string&` like querying the
capacity cannot be implemented with the customized value representation because
it loses access to this additional state. Carbon allows type authors to make an
explicit choice about whether they want to work with a restricted API and
leverage a custom value representation or not.

**Open question:** Beyond the specific syntax used where we currently have a
placeholder `value_rep = T;`, we need to explore exactly what the best
relationship is with the customization point. For example, should this syntax
immediately forward declare `impl as ReferenceImplicitAs where .T = T`, thereby
allowing an out-of-line definition of the `Convert` method and `... where _` to
pick up the associated constant from the syntax. Alternatively, the syntactic
marker might be integrated into the `impl` declaration for `ReferenceImplicitAs`
itself.

## Alternatives considered

-   [No `var` introducer keyword](/proposals/p0339.md#no-var-introducer-keyword)
-   [Name of the `var` statement introducer](/proposals/p0339.md#name-of-the-var-statement-introducer)
-   [Colon between type and identifier](/proposals/p0339.md#colon-between-type-and-identifier)
-   [Type elision](/proposals/p0339.md#type-elision)
-   [Type ordering](/proposals/p0618.md#type-ordering)
-   [Elide the type instead of using `auto`](/proposals/p0851.md#elide-the-type-instead-of-using-auto)
-   [Value expression escape hatches](/proposals/p2006.md#value-expression-escape-hatches)
-   [References in addition to pointers](/proposals/p2006.md#references-in-addition-to-pointers)
-   [Syntax-free or automatic dereferencing](/proposals/p2006.md#syntax-free-or-automatic-dereferencing)
-   [Exclusively using references](/proposals/p2006.md#exclusively-using-references)
-   [Alternative pointer syntaxes](/proposals/p2006.md#alternative-pointer-syntaxes)
-   [Alternative syntaxes for locals](/proposals/p2006.md#alternative-syntaxes-for-locals)

## References

-   [Proposal #257: Initialization of memory and values][p0257]
-   [Proposal #339: `var` statement][p0339]
-   [Proposal #618: `var` ordering][p0618]
-   [Proposal #851: auto keyword for vars][p0851]
-   [Proposal #2006: Values, variables, and pointers][p2006]

[p0257]: /proposals/p0257.md
[p0339]: /proposals/p0339.md
[p0618]: /proposals/p0618.md
[p0851]: /proposals/p0851.md
[p2006]: /proposals/p2006.md
