One of the long-standing issues that we’ve been wrestling with in Rust is how to integrate the concept of an “uninhabited type” – that is, a type which has no values at all. Uninhabited types are useful to represent the “result” of some computation you know will never execute – for example, if you have to define an error type for some computation, but this particular computation can never fail, you might use an uninhabited type.

RFC 1216 introduced ! as the sort of “canonical” uninhabited type in Rust, but actually one can readily make an uninhabited type of your very own just by declared an enum with no variants (e.g., enum Void { }). Since such an enum can never be instantiated, the type cannot have any values. Done.

However, ever since the introduction of !, we’ve wrestled with some of its implications, particularly around exhaustiveness checking – that is, the checks the compiler does to ensure that when you write a match, you have covered every possibility. As we’ll see a bit later, there are some annoying tensions – particularly between the needs of “safe” and “unsafe” code – that are tricky to resolve.

Recently, though, Ralf Jung and I were having a chat and we came up with an interesting idea I wanted to write about. This idea offers a possibility for a “third way” that lets us resolve some of these tensions, I believe.

The idea: ! patterns

Traditionally, when one has an uninhabited type, one “matches against it” by not writing any patterns at all. So, for example, consider the enum Void { } case I had talked about. Today in Rust you can match against such an enum with an empty match statement:

enum Void { }
fn foo(v: Void) { match v { }

In effect, this match serves as a kind of assertion. You are saying “because v can never be instantiated, foo could never actually be called, and therefore – when I match against it – this match must be dead code”. Since the match is dead code, you don’t need to give any match arms: there is nowhere for execution to flow.

The funny thing is that you made this assertion – that the match is dead code – by not writing anything at all. We’ll see later that this can be problematic around unsafe code. The idea that Ralf and I had was to introduce a new kind of pattern, a ! pattern (pronounced a “never” pattern). This ! pattern matches against any enum with no variants – it is an explicit way to talk about impossible cases. Note that the ! pattern can be used with the ! type, but it can also be used with other types, like Void.

Now we can consider the match v { } above as a kind of shorthand for a use of the ! pattern:

fn foo(v: Void) { match v { ! }

Note that since ! explicitly represents an unreachable pattern, we don’t need to give a “body” to the match arm either.

We can use ! to cover more complex cases as well. Consider something like a Result that uses Void as the error case. If we want, we can use the ! pattern to explicitly say that the Err case is impossible:

fn foo(v: Result<String, Void>) { match v { Ok(s) => ..., Err(!), }

Same for matching a “reference to nothing”:

fn foo(v: &!) { match v { &!, }

Auto-never transformation

As I noted initially, the Rust compiler currently accepts “empty match” statements when dealing with uninhabited types. So clearly the use of the ! pattern cannot be mandatory – and anyway that would be unergonomic. The idea is that before we check exhaustiveness and so forth we have an “auto-never” step that automatically adds ! patterns into your match as needed.

There are two ways you can be missing cases:

  • If you are matching against an enum, you might cover some of the enum variants but not all. e.g., match foo { Ok(_) => ... } is missing the Err case.
  • If you are matching against other kinds of values, you might be missing an arm altogether. This occurs most often with an empty match like match v { }.

The idea is that – when you omit a case – the compiler will attempt to insert ! patterns to cover that case. In effect, to try and prove on your behalf that this case is impossible. If that fails, you’ll get an error.

The auto-never rules that I would initially propose are as follows. The idea is that we define the auto-never rules based on the type that is being matched:

  • When matching a tuple of struct (a “product type”), we will “auto-never” all of the fields.
    • So e.g. if matching a (!, !) tuple, we would auto-never a (!, !) pattern.
    • But if matching a (u32, !) tuple, auto-never would fail. You would have to explicit write (_, !) as a pattern – we’ll cover this case when we talk about unsafe code below.
  • When matching a reference is uninhabited, we will generate a & pattern and auto-never the referent.
    • So e.g. if matching a &!, we would generate a &! pattern.
    • But there will be a lint for this case that fires “around unsafe code”, as we discuss below.
  • When matching an enum, then the “auto-never” would add all missing variants to that enum and then recursively auto-never those variants’ arguments.
    • e.g., if you write match x { None => .. .} where x: Option<T>, then we will attempt to insert Some(P) where the pattern P is the result of “auto-nevering” the type T.

Note that these rules compose. So for example if you are matching a value of type &(&!, &&Void), we would “auto-never” a pattern like &(&!, &&!).

Implications for safe code

One of the main use cases for uninhabited types like ! is to be able to write generic code that works with Result but have that Result be optimized away when errors are impossible. So the generic code might have a Result<String, E>, but when E happens to be !, that is represented in memory the same as Stringand the compiler can see that anything working with Err variants must be dead-code.

Similarly, when you get a result from such a generic function and you know that E is !, you should be able to painlessly ‘unwrap’ the result. So if I have a value result of type Result<String, !>, I would like to be able to use a let to extract the String:

let result: Result<String, !> = ...;
let Ok(value) = result;

and extract the Ok value v. Similarly, I might like to extract a reference to the inner value as well, doing something like this:

let result: Result<String, !> = ...;
let Ok(value) = &result;
// Here, `value: &String`.

or – equivalently – by using the as_ref method

let result: Result<String, !> = ...;
let Ok(value) = result.as_ref();
// Here, `value: &String`.

All of these cases should work out just fine under this proposal. The auto-never transformation would effectively add Err(!) or Err(&!) patterns – so the final example would be equivalent to:

let value = match result.as_ref() { Ok(v) => v, Err(&!),

Unsafe code and access-based models

Around safe code, the idea of ! patterns and auto-never don’t seem that useful: it’s maybe just an interesting way to make it a bit more explicit what is happening. Where they really start to shine, however, is when you start thinking carefully about unsafe code – and in particular when we think about how matches interact with access-based models of undefined behavior.

What data does a match “access”?

While the details of our model around unsafe code are still being worked out (in part by this post!), there is a general consensus that we want an “access-based” model. For more background on this, see Ralf’s lovely recent blog post on Stacked Borrows, and in particular the first section of it. In general, in an access-based model, the user asserts that data is valid by accessing it – and in particular, they need not access all of it.

So how do access-based models relate to matches? The Rust match is a very powerful construct that can do a lot of things! For example, it can extract fields from structs and tuples:

let x = (22, 44);
match x { (v, _) => ..., // reads the `x.0` field (_, w) => ..., // reads the `x.1` field

It can test which enum variant you have:

let x = Some(22);
match x { Some(_) => ..., None => ...,

And it can dereference a reference and read the data that it points at:

let x = &22;
match x { &w => ..., // Equivalent to `let w = *x;`

So how do we decide which data a match looks at? The idea is that you should be able to figure that out by looking at the patterns in the match arms and seeing what data they touch:

  • If you have a pattern with an enum variant like Some(_), then it must access the discriminant of the enum being matched.
  • If you have a &-pattern, then it must dereference the reference being matched.
  • If you have a binding, then it must copy out the data that is bound (e.g., the v in (v, _)).

This seems obvious enough. But what about when dealing with an uninhabited type? If I have match x { }, there are no arms at all, so what data does that access?

The key here is to think about the matches after the auto-never transformation has been done. In that case, we will never have an “empty match”, but rather a ! pattern – possibly wrapped in some other patterns. Just like any other enum pattern, this ! pattern is logically a kind of “discriminant read” – but in this case we are reading from a discriminant that cannot exist (and hence we can conclude the code is dead).

So, for example, we had a “reference-to-never” situation, like so:

let x: &! = ...;
match x { }

then this would be desugared into

let x: &! = ...;
match x { &! }

Looking at this elaborated form, the presence of the & pattern makes it clear that the match will access *x, and hence that the reference x must be valid (or else we have UB) – and since no valid reference to ! can exist, we can conclude that this match is dead code.

Devil is in the details

Now that we’ve introduced the idea of unsafe code and so forth, there are two particular interactions between the auto-never rules and unsafe code that I want to revisit:

  • Uninitialized memory, which explains why – when we auto-never a tuple type – we require all fields of the tuple to have uninhabited type, instead of just one.
  • References, which require some special care. In the auto-never rules as I proposed them earlier, we used a lint to try and thread the needle here.

Auto-never of tuple types and uninitialized memory

In the auto-never rules, I wrote the following:

  • When matching a tuple of struct (a “product type”), we will “auto-never” all of the fields.
    • So e.g. if matching a (!, !) tuple, we would auto-never a (!, !) pattern.
    • But if matching a (u32, !) tuple, auto-never would fail. You would have to explicit write (_, !) as a pattern – we’ll cover this case when we talk about unsafe code below.

You might think that this is stricter than necessary. After all, you can’t possibly construct an instance of a tuple type like (u32, !), since you can’t produce a ! value for the second half. So why require that all fields by uninhabited?

The answer is that, using unsafe code, it is possible to partially initialize a value like (u32, !). In other words, you could create code that just uses the first field, and ignores the second one. In fact, this is even quite reasonable! To see what I mean, consider a type like Uninit, which allows one to manipulate values that are possibly uninitialized (similar to the one introduced in RFC 1892):

union Uninit<T> { value: T, uninit: (),

Note that the contents of a union are generally only known to be valid when the fields are actually accessed (in general, unions may have fields of more than one type, and the compiler doesn’t known which one is the correct type at any given time – hopefully the programmer does).

Now let’s consider a function foo that uses Uninit. foo is generic over some type T; this type gets constructed by invoking the closure op:

fn foo<T>(op: impl FnOnce() -> T) { unsafe { let x: Uninit<(u32, T)> = Uninit { uninit: () }; x.value.0 = 22; // initialize first part of the tuple ... match x.value { (v, _) => { // access only first part of the tuple } } ... x.value.1 = op(); // initialize the rest of the tuple ... }

For some reason, in this code, we need to combine the result of this closure (of type T) with a u32, and we need to manipulate that u32 before we have invoked the closure (but probably after too). So we create an uninitialized (u32, T) value, using Uninit:

 let x: Uninit<(u32, T)> = Uninit { uninit: () };

Then we initialize just the x.value.0 part of the tuple:

 x.value.0 = 22; // initialize first part of the tuple

Finally, we can use operations like match (or just direct field access) to pull out parts of that tuple. In so doing, we are careful to ignore (using _) the parts that are not yet initialized:

 match x.value { (v, _) => { // access only first part of the tuple } }

Now, everything here is hunky-dory, right? Well, now what happens if I invoke foo with a closure op that never returns? That closure might have the return value ! – and now x has the type Uninit<(u32, !)>. This tuple (u32, !) is supposed to be uninhabited, and yet here we are initializing it (well, the first half) and accessing it (well, the first half). Is that ok?

In fact, when we first enabled full exhaustivness checking and so forth, we hit code doing exactly patterns like this. (Ony that code wasn’t yet using a union like Uninit – it was using mem::uninitialized, which creates problems of its own.)

In general, a goal for the auto-never rules was that they would only apply when there is no matchable data accessable from the value. In the case of a type like (u32, !), it may be (as we have seen) that there is usable data (the u32); so if we accepted match x { } that would mean that one could still add a pattern like (x, _) which would (a) extract data and (b) not by dead code and (c) not be UB. Seems bad.

Reference patterns and linting

Now that we are armed with this idea of ! and the auto-never transformation, we can examine the problem of reference types, which turns out to be the primary case where the needs of safe and unsafe code come into conflict.

Throughout this post, I’ve been assuming that we want to treat values of types like &! as effectively “uninhabited” – this follows from the fact that we want Result<String, !> to be something that you can work with ergonomically in safe code. Since a common thing to do is to use as_ref() to transform a &Result<String, !> into a Result<&String, &!>, I think we would still want the compiler to understand that the Err variant ought to be treated as impossible in such a type.

Unfortunately, when it comes to unsafe code, there is a general desire to treat any reference &T “with suspicion”. Specifically, we don’t want to make the assumption that this is a reference to valid, initialized memory unless we see an explicit dereference by the user. This is really the heart of the “access-based” philosophy.

But that implies that a value of type &! ought not be considered uninhabited – it might be a reference to uninitialized memory, for example, that is never intended to be used.

If we indeed permit you to treat &! values as uninhabited, then we are making it so that match statements can “invisibily” insert dereferences for you that you might not expect. That seems worrisome.

Auto-never patterns gives us a way to resolve this impasse. For example, when matching on a &! value, we can insert the &! pattern automatically – but lint if that occurs in an unsafe function or a function that contains an unsafe block (or perhaps a function that manipulates raw pointers). Users can then silence the lint by writing out a &! pattern explicitly. Effectively, the lint would enforce the rule that “in and around unsafe code, you should write out &! patterns explicitly, but in safe code, you don’t have to”.

Alternatively, we could limit the auto-never transformation so that &T types do not “auto-never” – but that imposes an ergonomic tax on safe code.


This post describes the idea of a “never pattern” (written !) that matches against the ! type or any other “empty enum” type. It also describes an auto-never transformation that inserts such patterns into matches. As a result – in the desugared case, at least – we no longer use the absence of a match arm to designate matches against uninhabited types.

Explicit ! patterns make it easier to define what data a match will access. They also give us a way to use lints to help bridge the needs of safe and unsafe code: we can encourage unsafe code to write explicit ! patterns where they might help document subtle points of the semantics, without imposing that burden on safe code.