Jan 03 2023

There’s a famous quote by Eleanor Roosevelt:

great minds discuss semantics, average minds discuss syntax and small minds discuss syntax of comments

(Apologies, Phil Wadler.)

I’d like to preface this post that I do not consider this to be an actual proposal to change Rust, even a pre-RFC. I don’t think that making changes like this has enough benefits once a language is as established as Rust is. Consider this post more of some musings about some things that there wasn’t really time to truly consider when Rust was younger, so that maybe someone who’s making a new language can learn from those things early enough in its life to do so.

Also, I am not the first person to think about this, but I have lost the previous post to time. There also may be a newfangled language that has this or similar syntax already I’m not aware of. If you know of similar previous proposals or languages, please let me know so that I can link to them here.

Anyway, consider this post a “Steve decided to write up a thing instead of just tweeting, it is not particularly well thought out but at least it’s down on paper” kind of thing. A serious proposal here, even if I thought the idea was good in general, which to repeat again, I do not, would require examining a lot more corner cases than I do in this post.

With all of that out of the way, let’s begin.

The fn syntax

Rust does a really good job of being orthogonal in many ways. While it isn’t a tiny language, that things fit together nicely is one of the things that can make it feel a lot smaller, in my opinion. There’s one thing, though, that is really a bit inconsistent today, and that’s the syntax and semantics of functions.

Let me explain: you declare a function item (read: define a function) like this:

fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 {

Simple enough. However, there’s a lot more going on for more complex declarations. Here is the beginning of the current grammar of functions:

Function :
   FunctionQualifiers fn IDENTIFIER GenericParams?
      ( FunctionParameters? )
      FunctionReturnType? WhereClause?
      ( BlockExpression | ; )

I read this like this: “A function consists of some function qualifiers, fn, an identifier, and an optional list of generic parameters. We then have some optional function parameters inside of parenthesis, an optional return type, an optional where clause, and then a block expression or a semicolon.”

This is in sharp contrast to a C-style function definition, which would look like this:

int foo(int x) {
    // todo

In general, most new languages have tended to settle closer to Rust’s syntax here than C’s. There are a few reasons, and it’s not like Rust invented this style in the first place. One of the core nice things about Rust style syntax is that fn IDENTIFIER, that is, if you want to find out where foo() is defined, grep for fn foo and you can find it pretty quickly. You can’t do this as well with the int syntax. Some code styles have you write

foo(int x) {
    // todo

Notably, the GNU project uses this style:

It is also important for function definitions to start the name of the function in column one. This helps people to search for function definitions, and may also help certain tools recognize them.

You instead grep for ^foo, and you can get a similar benefit.

So, what’s bad about this syntax? Well, there are useful ‘modifiers’ to functions, and Rust has added some and may add more in the future. For example, if we want foo to be callable in a const context, we’d make it a const fn:

const fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 {

That’s all well and good, we still even retain the “grep for fn” idea here, but these are also useful on arbitrary blocks of code:

let x = const {
    1 + 2

This is of course a trivial example that’s not very useful, but it shows off the syntax here. My point is… this starts to feel a bit… nonuniform. In the function delcaration, we put const at the front, but when it’s any other block expression, we put it right before the block. Rust’s function bodies are similar to blocks in other ways, such as the whole “evaluates to the final expression” thing. But they’re different when they’re being used to describe the body of a function. That’s a bit less than ideal.

We could try the naive thing:

fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 const {

This is… weird, but it does sort of unify some syntaxes. We now can turn any block of code, including a function body, const by adding the const right before the opening brace. However… I kinda shudder at i32 const. There’s not enough separation between the return type and the modifier to make quick sense of things, in my opinion. However, there’s another small tweak we could make here. But first, a small divergence into another corner of Rust’s syntax: variables.


Rust also has a different syntax for variable declaration. Like C, it’s similar to its function declaration syntax:

// Rust
let x: i32 = 5;
// C
int x = 5;

We have let instead of fn, we have the name: type instead of type name. We can also declare a variable but not initialize it:

let x: i32;

Rust will make us initialize it before we use it, but we can declare the variable on its own, and then give it an initial value later.

But what’s this has to do with functions?

A marginally better syntax

Functions also happen to have a “declare the signature but not the body” syntax in Rust too, though it’s almost exclusively used in an FFI context. Remember the very end of our grammar?

and then a block expression or a semicolon.

If we have a function foo that we’re calling through FFI, we can define it like this:

#[link(name = "something")]
extern {
    fn foo(x: i32) -> i32;

We don’t provide a body, but we do provide a semicolon. This is strikingly similar to the variable syntax. So why not have the regular function definition also follow the variable syntax?

fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 = {

We’ve now added one little extra bit to the grammar: a = after the return type, if any. This one little change allows us to unify the rest of the syntax around blocks more easily:

// full signature
fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 = {

// empty return type
fn foo(x: i32) = {

// const
fn foo(x: i32) -> i32 = const {

I happen to really like this. It’s a pretty small tweak but I think it cleans stuff up nicely.

let name = value;
fn name() = value;

Where both could be values or blocks, with let it’s most often a value but with fn it’s most often a block. The symmetry pleases me.

(Sharp readers will also notice the introduction of a semicolon. Leaving it off would be closer to the old syntax, requring it would be similar to the variable syntax, but then that would diverge from the other item declaration syntax… I don’t feel strongly about it but just in case anyone noticed I figured I’d mention that as well, yet another rabbit hole to chase down.)

Going too far

This of course raises another divergence. But I’m not sure that fixing this one is worth it; it starts to get too weird, I think. But maybe I’m wrong. This one is about the types.

One of the things that makes name: type syntax nicer than type name syntax is that it degrades nicely in the presence of type inference:

// Rust
let x: i32 = 5;
let x = 5;
// C23 (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3007.htm)
int x = 5;
auto x = 5;

Rust’s function syntax isn’t like this though, partially because there’s no type inference on function signatures, so there’s not a lot of pressure for it to degrade nicely. The choice not to offer inference is the right one for Rust, but for a future language where that’s not the case, we could unify them with something like this:

// explicit type
fn foo(x): fn(i32) -> i32 = {

// inferred
fn foo(x) = {

This one… this may be too far afield. And, while Rust doesn’t have named parameters, and possibly never will, I have no idea how this style of syntax would work with that. There’s also some repetition of fn here that might be worth trying to remove, but I’m trying to make the smallest possible deltas from existing syntax here, and fn(i32) -> i32 is the type of that function in today’s syntax.

What I mostly take away from this part of the exercise is that consistency is a good goal, but it’s not the only goal. Even if Rust didn’t allow for inference, making its function declaration syntax be like this may have simply been a bridge too far for wide adoption. Rust already takes a lot of flak for being weird, and spending some Strangeness Budget to unify these syntaxes probably wouldn’t be the right choice. But maybe I’m too conservative! Given that Rust already takes that flak, maybe a bigger jump would have been okay here. Who knows.

… actually, we have one way to find out, I guess. This is very similar to the syntax that Herb Sutter came up with for cppfront:

foo: (x: i32) -> i32 = {
    // todo

There’s no fn preceding. The type syntax works a bit differently. But it’s close. And Herb is targetting the people who I’d be most worried about hating this syntax: C++ folks. Maybe this idea isn’t so farfetched at all. He’s also got an example of how making it any expression after the = can be nice for one-liner functions. If we applied this to our fake Rust syntax:

fn main() = println!("Hello, world!");
fn hello(name): fn(&str) = println!("Hello, {name}!");

That’s kinda nice too.