Why design a language with unique anonymous types?

Lambdas are not just functions, they are a function and a state. Therefore both C++ and Rust implement them as an object with a call operator (operator() in C++, the 3 Fn* traits in Rust).

Basically, [a] { return a + 1; } in C++ desugars to something like

struct __SomeName {
    int a;

    int operator()() {
        return a + 1;
    }
};

then using an instance of __SomeName where the lambda is used.

While in Rust, || a + 1 in Rust will desugar to something like

{
    struct __SomeName {
        a: i32,
    }

    impl FnOnce<()> for __SomeName {
        type Output = i32;
        
        extern "rust-call" fn call_once(self, args: ()) -> Self::Output {
            self.a + 1
        }
    }

    // And FnMut and Fn when necessary

    __SomeName { a }
}

This means that most lambdas must have different types.

Now, there are a few ways we could do that:

  • With anonymous types, which is what both languages implement. Another consequence of that is that all lambdas must have a different type. But for language designers, this has a clear advantage: Lambdas can be simply described using other already existing simpler parts of the language. They are just syntax sugar around already existing bits of the language.
  • With some special syntax for naming lambda types: This is however not necessary since lambdas can already be used with templates in C++ or with generics and the Fn* traits in Rust. Neither language ever force you to type-erase lambdas to use them (with std::function in C++ or Box<Fn*> in Rust).

Also note that both languages do agree that trivial lambdas that do not capture context can be converted to function pointers.

Describing complex features of a languages using simpler feature is pretty common. For example both C++ and Rust have range-for loops, and they both describe them as syntax sugar for other features.

C++ defines

for (auto&& [first,second] : mymap) {
    // use first and second
}

as being equivalent to

{

    init-statement
    auto && __range = range_expression ;
    auto __begin = begin_expr ;
    auto __end = end_expr ;
    for ( ; __begin != __end; ++__begin) {

        range_declaration = *__begin;
        loop_statement

    }

}

and Rust defines

for <pat> in <head> { <body> }

as being equivalent to

let result = match ::std::iter::IntoIterator::into_iter(<head>) {
    mut iter => {
        loop {
            let <pat> = match ::std::iter::Iterator::next(&mut iter) {
                ::std::option::Option::Some(val) => val,
                ::std::option::Option::None => break
            };
            SemiExpr(<body>);
        }
    }
};

which while they seem more complicated for a human, are both simpler for a language designer or a compiler.


Many standards (especially C++) take the approach of minimizing how much they demand from compilers. Frankly, they demand enough already! If they don't have to specify something to make it work, they have a tendency to leave it implementation defined.

Were lambdas to not be anonymous, we would have to define them. This would have to say a great deal about how variables are captured. Consider the case of a lambda [=](){...}. The type would have to specify which types actually got captured by the lambda, which could be non-trivial to determine. Also, what if the compiler successfully optimizes out a variable? Consider:

static const int i = 5;
auto f = [i]() { return i; }

An optimizing compiler could easily recognize that the only possible value of i that could be captured is 5, and replace this with auto f = []() { return 5; }. However, if the type is not anonymous, this could change the type or force the compiler to optimize less, storing i even though it didn't actually need it. This is a whole bag of complexity and nuance that simply isn't needed for what lambdas were intended to do.

And, on the off-case that you actually do need a non-anonymous type, you can always construct the closure class yourself, and work with a functor rather than a lambda function. Thus, they can make lambdas handle the 99% case, and leave you to code your own solution in the 1%.

Deduplicator pointed out in comments that I did not address uniqueness as much as anonymity. I am less certain of the benefits of uniqueness, but it is worth noting that the behavior of the following is clear if the types are unique (action will be instantiated twice).

int counter()
{
    static int count = 0;
    return count++;
}

template <typename FuncT>
void action(const FuncT& func)
{
    static int ct = counter();
    func(ct);
}

...
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
    action([](int j) { std::cout << j << std::endl; });

for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
    action([](int j) { std::cout << j << std::endl; });

If the types were not unique, we would have to specify what behavior should happen in this case. That could be tricky. Some of the issues that were raised on the topic of anonymity also raise their ugly head in this case for uniqueness.

Tags:

C++

Types

Language Design

Rust

Recent Posts