RFC: Array Reference Type

[jturner314]

Please post your thoughts, or let me know if something is unclear/confusing!

Summary

This RFC proposes the addition of a new storage type RefRepr and associated type aliases ArrayRef<A, D>, ArrayRef1<A>, ArrayRef2<A>, etc., such that we can implement the following traits:

• Borrow<ArrayRef<A, D>> for ArrayBase<S, D> where S: Data
• Deref<Target = ArrayRef<A, D>> for ArrayBase<S, D> where S: Data
• BorrowMut<ArrayRef<A, D>> for ArrayBase<S, D> where S: DataMut
• DerefMut<Target = ArrayRef<A, D>> for ArrayBase<S, D> where S: DataMut
• ToOwned<Owned = Array<A, D>> for ArrayRef<A, D>

&'a ArrayRef<A, D> would be analogous to ArrayView<'a, A, D>, and &'a mut ArrayRef<A, D> would be analogous to ArrayViewMut<'a, A, D>.

Many of the methods on ArrayBase would be moved to be implemented only on ArrayRef instead, and be available through deref coercion, similar to how much of the functionality of Vec<T> is actually implemented on [T].

Motivation

Good way to express function parameters

Consider a function that needs a view of a 2-D array of f64 elements. With current ndarray, we have the following ways to express this:

// Option 1
fn function<S>(arr: &ArrayBase<S, Ix2>)
where
    S: Data<Elem = f64>,
{}

// Option 2
fn function<'a, V: AsArray<'a, f64, Ix2>>(arr: V) {}

// Option 3
fn function<'a>(arr: impl AsArray<'a, f64, Ix2>) {}

// Option 4
fn function(arr: ArrayView2<'_, f64>) {}

Each of these has disadvantages:

• Options 1 and 2 are verbose, and become particularly bad for functions taking many array parameters.

• Option 4 is unnatural for callers of the function. (In most cases, they have to call .view() on the argument, which is verbose and is different from most Rust code, which typically uses references for this use-case.)

• Options 1, 2, and 3 are generic, so they suffer from monomorphization bloat, as discussed in the next section. For functions taking multiple array parameters, it's even worse—the number of possible type combinations is exponential in the number of array parameters. (To minimize the bloat, it's necessary to create an inner function like option 4, and make the outer function convert the parameter(s) to ArrayView and call the inner function.)

With this RFC, it will be possible to express the function like this:

fn function(arr: &ArrayRef2<f64>) {}

This is more concise than the other options, and it's not generic, so there is no monomorphization bloat.

Mutable views would be handled similarly, just with &mut instead of &.

Substantially reduce monomorphization bloat

Most of the functionality of ndarray is currently implemented as methods on ArrayBase<S, D>. As a result, the methods are monomorphized for each new combination of S and D types, which means that there's a lot of nearly-identical generated code, i.e. "monomorphization bloat". The same issue occurs for crates which provide extension traits, such as ndarray-linalg, ndarray-stats, and ndarray-npy. (It's possible to minimize monomorphization bloat for a method by changing it to convert everything to ArrayView/Mut and then call an inner function which takes ArrayView/Mut parameters. However, that's very verbose and tedious.)

If, instead, we move most functionality to be implemented only on ArrayRef<A, D>, analogous to how much of the functionality of Vec<T> is actually implemented on [T], then the monomorphization bloat due to differing storage types would be eliminated. (Callers would rely on deref coercion, like they do for methods actually implemented on [T] for Vec<T>.)

Enable in-place arithmetic operator syntax for the result of a slicing operation

Currently, it's not possible to use in-place arithmetic operator syntax for the results of slicing operations; instead, it's necessary to call the appropriate method:

let mut a = array![0, 1, 2, 3, 4];

// Compiles:
use std::ops::AddAssign;
a.slice_mut(s![1..3]).add_assign(1);

// Doesn't compile:
*a.slice_mut(s![1..3]) += 1;

The error message is

error[E0614]: type `ArrayBase<ViewRepr<&mut {integer}>, Dim<[usize; 1]>>` cannot be dereferenced
  --> src/main.rs:11:5
   |
11 |     *a.slice_mut(s![1..3]) += 1;
   |    

By making ArrayBase dereference to ArrayRef and implementing the in-place arithmetic operators on ArrayRef, this will compile without errors.

Better integration into the Rust ecosystem

The existing Rust ecosystem provides functionality dependent on traits like Borrow. Implementing these traits will allow ndarray to interact more cleanly with the rest of the ecosystem. See #878 for one example.

Guide-level explanation

In many ways, an owned array Array<A, D> is similar to Vec<A>. It is an allocated container for a collection of elements.

The new ArrayRef<A, D> type for arrays is analogous to the [A] (i.e. slice) type for vectors. Arrays dereference to ArrayRef<A, D>, like Vec<A> derefs to [A], so functionality available for ArrayRef<A, D> is available for other array types through deref coercion, like how functionality available for [A] is available for Vec<A> through deref coercion.

When writing a function, you should use &ArrayRef<A, D> or &mut ArrayRef<A, D> as the parameter types when possible, similar to how you'd use &[A] or &mut [A] instead of &Vec<A> or &mut Vec<A>.

In general, handle ArrayRef<A, D> analogously to how you'd handle [A]. The primary ways in which they are not analogous are the following:

• ArrayRef<A, D> is Sized, unlike [A]. As a result, &ArrayRef<A, D> is a thin pointer, while &[A] is a thick pointer.

• Due to technical limitations, given an array it's not possible to directly create an &ArrayRef that is a view of a portion of the array. In other words, you can create a slice (i.e. &[A]) of a portion of a &[A]/Vec<A> with indexing, e.g. &var[3..12], but this is not possible for &ArrayRef. In order to create an &ArrayRef that references a portion of an array, you have to first create an ArrayView (by slicing, etc.), and then coerce that ArrayView to ArrayRef.

Also note that &'a ArrayRef<A, D> is similar to ArrayView<'a, A, D>, and &'a mut ArrayRef<A, D> is similar to ArrayViewMut<'a, A, D>, with the following exceptions:

• You don't have call a method like .reborrow() (for ArrayView/Mut) to manually shorten the lifetime of the borrow. The lifetimes of references to ArrayRef will be automatically adjusted as necessary, just like other references in Rust.

• The shape, strides, and pointer of an &ArrayRef<A, D> or &mut ArrayRef<A, D> cannot be modified. For example, you can't call .slice_axis_inplace(). To get an array with different shape/strides/pointer, you have to create a view. For example, you could call .slice_axis(), or you could create a view with .view() and then call .slice_axis_inplace() on the view.

Implementation

Implementing Deref and DerefMut with Target = ArrayRef<A, D>

The new RefRepr storage type will be:

#[repr(C)]
pub struct RefRepr<A> {
    elem: PhantomData<A>,
}

The ArrayBase struct will be changed to the following:

#[repr(C)]
pub struct ArrayBase<S, D>
where
    S: RawData,
{
    dim: D,
    strides: D,
    ptr: NonNull<S::Elem>,
    data: S,
}

The important parts of this change are:

• The dim, strides, and ptr fields are the first fields in the struct.

• The struct is declared repr(C).

These changes are necessary so that it's possible to implement Deref and DerefMut by casting references to ArrayBase into references to ArrayRef.

@bluss pointed out below that it's necessary to avoid infinite recursion in deref coercion. To do this, a DataDeref trait will be added:

pub unsafe trait DataDeref: Data {}

This trait will be implemented by all storage types except for RefRepr and will be used as a bound for the Deref and DerefMut implementations.

Deref and DerefMut will be implemented like this:

impl<A, S, D> Deref for ArrayBase<S, D>
where
    S: Data<Elem = A> + DataDeref,
{
    type Target = ArrayRef<A, D>;

    fn deref(&self) -> &ArrayRef<A, D> {
        unsafe {
            &*(self as *const Self).cast::<ArrayRef<A, D>>()
        }
    }
}

impl<A, S, D> DerefMut for ArrayBase<S, D>
where
    S: DataMut<Elem = A> + DataDeref,
{
    fn deref_mut(&mut self) -> &mut ArrayRef<A, D> {
        self.ensure_unique();
        unsafe {
            &mut *(self as *mut Self).cast::<ArrayRef<A, D>>()
        }
    }
}

Moving most existing methods to be implemented only for ArrayRef<A, D>

Most of the existing methods which don't modify the shape/strides/pointer (such as slice, mapv, etc.) will no longer be implemented for all ArrayBase<S, D>, but rather will be implemented only on ArrayRef<A, D>. This change isn't necessary in order to introduce the ArrayRef type, but it is necessary in order to reduce the existing monomorphization bloat, which is one of the primary benefits of the ArrayRef type.

Data traits for RefRepr

The RefRepr type will implement the following traits:

• RawData
• RawDataMut
• Data (but make the into_owned implementation panic with unreachable!())
• DataMut
• RawDataSubs

In other words, the &'a or &'a mut in a reference to an ArrayRef will control the lifetime and mutability of the data.

We need to audit all of the available methods to make sure that:

• it's possible to create an &'a ArrayRef<A, D> only for a base array with S: Data that lives at least as long as 'a,
• it's possible to create an &'a mut ArrayRef<A, D> only for a base array with S: DataMut that lives at least as long as 'a, and
• it's not possible to create an ArrayRef<A, D>

(I believe this is already true if we just add the Deref, DerefMut, Borrow, and BorrowMut implementations, but we should check.)

Preventing modification of shape/strides/pointer via &mut ArrayRef<A, D>

To minimize confusion and behave analogously to &mut [A], it should not be possible to modify the underlying shape/strides/pointer through a &mut ArrayRef<A, D>. For example,

let mut owned: Array2<f32> = Array::<f32>::zeros((4, 5));
let mut borrowed: &mut ArrayRef<A, D> = &mut owned;
// should not compile since it would modify the shape/strides/pointer:
borrowed.slice_axis_inplace(Axis(0), ..);

To achieve this:

• A new MetaMut trait will be added to control whether the shape/strides/pointer can be modified.

• MetaMut will be implemented for all of the existing storage types (OwnedRepr, ViewRepr, etc.), but not the new RefRepr type.

• A S: MetaMut bound will be added to all methods which modify the shape/strides/pointer in-place (such as slice_collapse, slice_axis_inplace, collapse_axis, swap_axes, invert_axis, merge_axes, insert_axis_inplace, and index_axis_inplace) .

Drawbacks

This proposal introduces yet another storage type, when ndarray already has quite a few.

The similarity of &'a ArrayRef<A, D> to ArrayView<'a, A, D> and &'a mut ArrayRef<A, D> to ArrayViewMut<'a, A, D> could be confusing to new users.

The requirement that it must be possible to create ArrayRef references by reinterpreting the bits in existing ArrayBase instances limits the possible field layouts of ArrayBase.

Rationale and alternatives

Allow mutation of the shape/strides/pointer for &mut ArrayRef<A, D>

It would be possible to avoid the new MetaMut trait by allowing modification of the shape/strides/pointer through &mut ArrayRef<A, D> instances. However, this would likely be confusing to users who are familiar with how &mut [T]/Vec<T> behave, and it would increase the potential for bugs.

Keep most method implementations on all ArrayBase<S, D>

It would be possible to keep the existing method implementations for all ArrayBase<S, D> instead of moving them to be implemented only on ArrayRef<A, D>. However, this would not bring the reduced monomorphization bloat which is one of the advantages of the new ArrayRef type.

Make ArrayRef be a separate struct from ArrayBase

It would be possible for ArrayRef to be a separate struct from ArrayBase, instead of an alias of ArrayBase. This would have the following advantages:

• Deref, DerefMut, Borrow, and BorrowMut could be implemented for ArrayBase without unsafe code.
• The MetaMut and DataDeref traits wouldn't be necessary.
• There's less potential for unwanted overlapping or recursive trait impls.
• Keeping the types separate may be less confusing for new users.

The disadvantages of a separate struct type are:

• The transition to ArrayRef would be more disruptive. Until libraries update their functions to take &ArrayRef or &mut ArrayRef parameters instead of &ArrayBase or &mut ArrayBase parameters, ArrayRef would not be compatible with those functions. (Users of those libraries would likely have to call .view()/.view_mut() in some places.)

• It may be less convenient for generic code which wants to operate on all array types.

  For example, if ArrayRef is not a separate struct, then these impls are sufficient for AddAssign:

  impl<'b, A, B, S2, D1, D2> AddAssign<&'b ArrayBase<S2, D2>> for ArrayRef<A, D1>
  where
      A: AddAssign<&'b B>,
      B: 'b,
      S2: Data<Elem = B>,
      D1: Dimension,
      D2: Dimension,
  {}
  
  impl<A, B, D> AddAssign<B> for ArrayRef<A, D>
  where
      A: AddAssign<B>,
      B: ScalarOperand,
      D: Dimension,
  {}
  

  (Note that, unfortunately, we can't replace impl<'b, A, B, S2, D1, D2> AddAssign<&'b ArrayBase<S2, D2>> for ArrayRef<A, D1> with impl<'b, A, B, D1, D2> AddAssign<&'b ArrayRef<B, D2>> for ArrayRef<A, D1>. For some reason, the compiler has trouble figuring out which impl to use when impl<A, B, D> AddAssign<B> for ArrayRef<A, D> also exists.)

  However, if ArrayRef is a separate struct, then it would be necessary to add another impl:

  impl<'b, A, B, D1, D2> AddAssign<&'b ArrayRef<B, D2>> for ArrayRef<A, D1>
  where
      A: AddAssign<&'b B>,
      B: 'b,
      D1: Dimension,
      D2: Dimension,
  {}
  

Custom DST (i.e. custom thick pointer types)

Instead of using thin pointers to ArrayRef, we could wait for custom DSTs (e.g. RFC 2594) to be added to Rust, and then create a custom DST similar to ArrayRef. This would have the following advantages:

• Since the shape/strides/pointer would be stored within the thick pointer, it would be possible to modify the shape/strides/pointer in the thick pointer in-place, unlike for a reference to an ArrayRef.

• Slicing methods could return a thick pointer instead of an ArrayView/Mut except in the IxDyn case.

• Raw thick pointers (i.e. *const/*mut) would be more useful. In other words, since the shape/strides would be stored within the thick pointer itself, it should be possible to access that information without dereferencing the pointer. So, except in the IxDyn case, thick pointers could replace RawArrayView/Mut. In contrast, given a *const ArrayRef<A, D> or *mut ArrayRef<A, D>, you have to dereference the pointer to access the shape/strides, so ArrayRef cannot replace most uses of RawArrayView/Mut.

However, I'm not aware of any Rust RFC for custom DSTs which would make it possible to create a custom DST with support for the dynamic-dimensional (IxDyn) case. So, there would be this weird dichotomy between the convenience of thick pointers for the const-dimensional case and the complexity of the dynamic-dimensional case. In contrast, the ArrayRef type proposed in this RFC would support the const-dimensional and dynamic-dimensional cases in a uniform way.

Future possibilities

One thing I wanted to make sure when writing this proposal was that it would still allow replacing the ArrayBase struct with a trait-based API in the future. In other words, if we had

struct Array<A, D> { ... }

struct ArrayView<'a, A, D> { ... }

// ...

trait NdArray { ... }

trait NdArrayMut { ... }

// ...

instead of having all arrays be instances of ArrayBase, it would be nice for this proposal to still apply. This proposal would, in fact, be compatible with a trait-based API, and the implementation could be somewhat cleaner because it wouldn't require any unsafe code. I'd suggest implementing the types like this:

struct Array<A, D> {
    meta: ArrayRef<A, D>,
    data: Vec<A>,
}

struct ArrayView<'a, A, D> {
    meta: ArrayRef<A, D>,
    life: PhantomData<&'a A>,
}

struct ArrayRef<A, D> {
    shape: D,
    strides: D,
    ptr: NonNull<A>,
}

impl<A, D> Deref for Array<A, D> {
    type Target = ArrayRef<A, D>;

    fn deref(&self) -> &ArrayRef<A, D> {
        &self.meta
    }
}

// ...

[bluss]

Cool, I think it's a good idea.

The core of this idea has been attempted - I'm 90% sure we've talked about it but I can't see it in the issues, and I've played around with this as a code change. But never so fleshed out as this (To be clear - now it's a much better time to do it too, it feels like we know what we are allowed to do in unsafe Rust to a bigger extent now). I would be tempted to start with having struct ArrayBase<S, D> { core: ArrayRef<A, D>, data: S } to start with, but there could be many ways to start. Something that doesn't touch the public interface and then migrates it piece by piece would probably be a good way to go.

I would like to reduce the monomorphization bloat. Do you have any example in particular where you have experienced this?

And yes, traitification has been the solution I have favoured but it seems like it would be good to do both.

I agree with everything you've written.

I believe the .deref_mut() needs a call to the unshare method, it's probably the right place to put it. 🙂

With this - Borrow and all - can we then deprecate CowArray? It has not developed so much.

[jturner314]

I'm 90% sure we've talked about it but I can't see it in the issues

Now that you mention it, I vaguely recall this too.

I would be tempted to start with having struct ArrayBase<S, D> { core: ArrayRef<A, D>, data: S } to start with

I thought about this, but it would require ArrayRef to be a different struct from ArrayBase instead of a type alias of ArrayBase, which may be less convenient for generic code. (If ArrayRef was a field of ArrayBase but wasn't a different struct, then ArrayBase would be an infinitely recursive type.)

Something that doesn't touch the public interface and then migrates it piece by piece would probably be a good way to go.

A fairly minimal starting point would be to implement all of the RFC except for the "moving most methods to be implemented only on ArrayRef" part. In other words, start by leaving them implemented for generic ArrayBase. That way, the only breaking change would be adding the S: MetaMut bounds to the methods that modify the shape/strides/pointer.

I would like to reduce the monomorphization bloat. Do you have any example in particular where you have experienced this?

It's not something I've investigated or noticed in practice (other than maybe compile times?); it's just something I'm aware of. Basically, by changing function parameter types to be &ArrayRef or &mut ArrayRef instead of being generic over the storage types, most monomorphization bloat due to storage types would be eliminated. A quick look through impl_methods.rs shows that most methods are fairly small or call a less-generic inner function, so the RFC may not have as large an impact on ndarray itself as I originally thought. However, there are some larger functions and extension methods in ndarray-stats, ndarray-linalg, ndarray-npy, and my own private code that are generic over the storage type and haven't been modified to use the "less-generic inner function" trick. A couple of examples are partition_mut in ndarray-stats and write_npy in ndarray-npy.

And yes, traitification has been the solution I have favoured but it seems like it would be good to do both.

Yeah, long-term, I think a trait-based approach is the way to go.

I believe the .deref_mut() needs a call to the unshare method, it's probably the right place to put it. slightly_smiling_face

I assume you mean .ensure_unique()? Good catch. I've edited the post to add it.

With this - Borrow and all - can we then deprecate CowArray? It has not developed so much.

This RFC would make it possible to use std::borrow::Cow<'a, ArrayRef<A, D>>. However, with this Cow type, it wouldn't be possible to modify the shape/strides/pointer without cloning the entire array. (Of course, you could always create a view, but sometimes that's less convenient than modifying the shape/strides/pointer directly.) In contrast, CowArray allows the shape/strides/pointer to be modified without cloning the data, so it's still useful. (Although, you could argue whether or not it would still be useful enough to keep.)

[bluss]

Oh thanks for spelling that out, I guess once I was "set" on the separate ArrayRef struct, I didn't think of RefRepr as a proper data storage in ArrayBase of its own. It makes sense now.

It seems like as defined ArrayBase<RefRepr<_>, _> will have a self-referential Deref impl and Rust won't like this (it will compile but cause errors on deref). Some trait magic might need to be used to make sure we don't have a self-loop there.

And yes, I have been trying to reduce impl bloat but this sounds like a good idea anyway! (like #819 etc)

[jturner314]

It seems like as defined ArrayBase<RefRepr<_>, _> will have a self-referential Deref impl and Rust won't like this (it will compile but cause errors on deref). Some trait magic might need to be used to make sure we don't have a self-loop there.

Oh, good point. I didn't think of that. I tried a simplified example, and you're right:

error[E0055]: reached the recursion limit while auto-dereferencing `ArrayBase<RefRepr<{integer}>>`
  --> src/main.rs:70:24
   |
70 |     println!("{:?}", a.first());
   |                        ^^^^^ deref recursion limit reached
   |
   = help: consider adding a `#![recursion_limit="256"]` attribute to your crate (`playground`)

A workaround is to add a DataDeref trait implemented by all the storage types other than RefRepr and which is used as a bound for Deref and DerefMut. Here are quick-and-dirty playground examples for methods implemented on ArrayBase and methods implemented on ArrayRef. I've updated the RFC.

[bluss]

This might solve the long standing += operator papercut. The thing that says that we can't do the operation *array.column_mut(0) += 1. fluently (In general: applying assign-ops to mutable views that are temporaries). With this, we can, just use the dereference there and *ArrayViewMut1 will have type ArrayRef1 which will implement the assign ops.

The separate structs are needed sooner or later I think, otherwise the ArrayBase system is going to be a growing confusion factor. Even with the gains in convenience here.

(I'm just adding pros and cons as I find them)

[jturner314]

This might solve the long standing += operator papercut.

This does, indeed, appear to be the case. This is a simplified, quick-and-dirty example in the playground.

The separate structs are needed sooner or later I think, otherwise the ArrayBase system is going to be a growing confusion factor. Even with the gains in convenience here.

I could go either way on this. I've added my thoughts on this to RFC above.

More details about the "easing the transition":

• If ArrayRef is not a separate struct, then existing functions that accept &ArrayBase would still be compatible with &ArrayRef. Ideally, they would eventually be modified to take &ArrayRef instead, but it wouldn't be as urgent.

• If ArrayRef is a separate struct, then existing functions that accept &ArrayBase would not be compatible with &ArrayRef. So, until libraries update to the new &ArrayRef type, users may find ArrayRef to be inconvenient. That said, this would strongly encourage libraries to update, and since ArrayRef will have to be introduced in a breaking release anyway, we could strongly encourage libraries to switch to ArrayRef when they bump the ndarray dependency.

[bluss]

Do we have a reference for the fact that casting between pointers to these two structs (*const ArrayBase to *const ArrayRef) that have identical common prefix, is legal?

[jturner314]

I've updated RefRepr to be repr(C) in the RFC to make sure that it has size 0 and alignment 1.

As far as I can tell, the cast is legal. The Rust reference documents the C representation in detail.

• Fields lining up: With repr(C), the dim, strides, and ptr are guaranteed to line up between the two types. After casting to ArrayRef, the offset to the ArrayRef's data field may end up inside padding between the original instance's ptr and data fields, but, AFAIK, that's fine since RefRepr is zero-sized. (In fact, the reference says that it's okay to read padding bytes, which I didn't realize.)

• Sizes: The size of ArrayRef<A, D> will not extend past the end of the ptr field, except for possibly padding, and it's not possible to construct an ArrayBase<S, D> with less padding after ptr than ArrayRef<A, D> (since RefRepr has size 0 and alignment 1).

• Alignment: The alignment of ArrayRef<A, D> will always be less than or equal to the alignment of ArrayBase<S, D> for any S, since the alignment of RefRepr is 1.

That said, I may be missing something.

The guaranteed-safe option would be to make ArrayRef a separate struct and replace the dim, strides, and ptr fields of ArrayBase with a single struct field. While I originally somewhat preferred making ArrayRef an instance of ArrayBase, the idea of making it a separate struct is growing on me. If we did make ArrayRef a separate struct, I'd do it like this:

struct ArrayMeta<A, D> {
    dim: D,
    strides: D,
    ptr: NonNull<A>,
}

pub struct ArrayBase<S, D>
where
    S: RawData,
{
    meta: ArrayMeta<S::Elem, D>,
    data: S,
}

mod array_ref {
    #[repr(transparent)]
    pub struct ArrayRef<A, D> {
        meta: ArrayMeta<A, D>,
    }

    impl<A, D> ArrayRef<A, D> {
        pub(crate) fn meta(&self) -> &ArrayMeta<A, D> {
            &self.meta
        }
    }

    impl<A, S, D> Deref for ArrayBase<S, D>
    where
        S: Data<Elem = A>,
    {
        type Target = ArrayRef<A, D>;

        fn deref(&self) -> &ArrayRef<A, D> {
            let meta_ptr = &self.meta as *const ArrayMeta<A, D>;
            unsafe {
                &*meta_ptr.cast::<ArrayRef<A, D>>()
            }
        }
    }

    impl<A, S, D> DerefMut for ArrayBase<S, D>
    where
        S: DataMut<Elem = A>,
    {
        fn deref_mut(&mut self) -> &mut ArrayRef<A, D> {
            self.ensure_unique();
            let meta_ptr = &mut self.meta as *mut ArrayMeta<A, D>;
            unsafe {
                &mut *meta_ptr.cast::<ArrayRef<A, D>>()
            }
        }
    }
}

pub use array_ref::ArrayRef;

The reason for keeping ArrayRef separate from ArrayMeta and in its own array_ref module (and not putting anything else in array_ref) is so that, outside of the small array_ref module, we can say things like, "if you have a &mut ArrayRef<A, D>, then it's safe to mutably access the elements it references". It also prevents accidental modification of an ArrayRef's meta field.

[bluss]

About the reference to docs - that's neat. I was hoping we'd find it spelled out when exactly it's legal to cast between pointers to two different struct types. In C we can't do this pointer cast even if the types are in theory representation identical - but that's due to type-based alias analysis which we don't have in Rust.

The following RFC seems to be a very current strain of the representation compatiblity discussion https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2981

About separate struct or not - there seems to be downsides with either alternative. if ArrayRef is just another parameterization of ArrayBase then it seems like that's the smoothest change for existing code, existing users should barely notice.

[jturner314]

I was hoping we'd find it spelled out when exactly it's legal to cast between pointers to two different struct types. In C we can't do this pointer cast even if the types are in theory representation identical - but that's due to type-based alias analysis which we don't have in Rust.

Okay, I understand. I didn't know that about C; that sounds really limiting. I thought manipulations like this were somewhat common in C. Do people work around the alias analysis by converting pointers to integers and back again (to break pointer provenance), use unions, or something else?

I think the cast to ArrayRef would be well-defined according to RFC 2981, but I'm not sure much of RFC 2981 describes current Rust and how much is just a proposal. Another reference is the Transmutes page of the Rustonomicon, but it's pretty vague on what's allowed, although it does imply that transmutes between different types with the same layout can be okay. I would feel more comfortable if someone with more expertise than me could provide guidance. The part of the cast that makes me the most nervous is the zero-sized data field in the ArrayRef, which may technically be located in padding of the original struct. Maybe we could reach out to the Unsafe Code Guidelines Working Group.

As far as implementing the RFC goes, I'd be happy for someone else to implement it. I wrote up this RFC now because I think that it's a good idea that'll solve problems with the current API, and I didn't want to forget about it. If no one else implements it, I'll probably get around to it eventually, but it'll be a while. (I'd guess at least half a year.)

[bluss]

C is tricky. The most useful rule is that one can cast a struct pointer to and from the first member's pointer https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9747010/does-accessing-the-first-field-of-a-struct-via-a-c-cast-violate-strict-aliasing

And then type punning through a union is ambiguous if it's really a rule, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11639947/is-type-punning-through-a-union-unspecified-in-c99-and-has-it-become-specified

With that said, I think the casts in this RFC feel right but it makes sense to make sure every step in the reasoning here has support.

[bluss]

I would be remiss not to mention the compiler option (in C) "-fno-strict-aliasing" which turns off the strict type-based aliasing rules. Many projects use that so that they can have more fun. That's pragmatic but it's basically turning off one of the language rules.

[akern40]

As far as implementing the RFC goes, I'd be happy for someone else to implement it.

Hi! I hope this isn't presumptuous, but I've started an implementation of this RFC; I figure if nothing else, it will let me really understand ndarray's internals; I also just spent a while developing a library at work that was operating on ArrayViews and personally experienced the annoyance that this RFC would relieve.

I've opted for the "separate struct" implementation as prototyped by @jturner314's comment above, and just wanted to mention it and address one note that I've found so far.

I think that the various debug_assert!(self.pointer_is_inbounds()) that verify safety in debug builds are no longer possible with the separate ArrayRef. I don't think this is a huge deal - after all, it's exclusively used for debug assertions anyway, so it doesn't change release safety - but it's worth mentioning. I believe this could be remedied by relying on the len() method (which uses dim.size() instead of the OwnedRepr len), but I'm not sure that quite gets the desired safety check.

I'm also wondering whether Arc could join Cow and get eliminated? But that's a discussion for a bit farther down the road, I think - Is should get my code to compile first 🙃

If you're curious, the implementation (which doesn't even build yet) is located here.

[akern40]

Ok, I've made some progress on the implementation and (in doing so) gotten a much stronger understanding of ndarray's guts. I've run into a challenge, however, that I'm curious to get some feedback on. I personally really like the "separate struct" implementation of ArrayRef; I found ndarray's storage types to be challenging to understand when I got started, and liked the idea of reducing the cognitive load. However, the S: Data and S: DataMut bounds on ArrayRef - which create that safety guarantee outside of the array_ref module - also mean that RawArrayViews and RawArrayViewMuts cannot be dereferenced into ArrayRefs. So if you start moving methods away from ArrayBase (such as the widely-used ndim) and into ArrayRef, those methods are either a) non-existent for Raw... or b) must be re-implemented with identical code for Raw....

First off, if I've misunderstood an issue, please stop here and let me know. I've been thinking this over and I would like to discuss a few solutions. The first is to essentially re-implement all methods that are appropriate for raw arrays, but I strongly dislike that much copied code. It could potentially be done by using a macro that implements a given behavior for both, but this feels a little like using macros to paste over poor design. Either way, implementing functions for both ArrayBase<S: RawData, D> and ArrayRef<A, D> essentially means that all the existing code (and any bloat) are still there, just with even more code for ArrayRef.

The second idea was to move closer to a design suggested at the end of the RFC: rely on traits a bit more, but also push the idea of Raw down to the Ref level. As far as I can tell, there are three types of behavior that should be separated:

1. Functions that work safely for any Array type (i.e., ndim, or others that only read metadata) and should therefore be available both for Raw variants and normal ones
2. Functions that only work safely for readable data, and should therefore not be available on Raw variants
3. Functions that modify the metadata of the Array, and should only be available on appropriate ArrayBase variants

Furthermore, we'd like to push as much code as possible down to the Ref level to provide a cleaner function interface and to reduce monomorphization bloat. So, here's what I was thinking:

1. Create RawArrayRef and ArrayRef
2. Implement Deref so that S: RawData derefs to RawArrayRef and S: Data derefs to ArrayRef
3. Somehow imbue both RawArrayRef and ArrayRef with the behavior described by (1) above, imbue ArrayRef with the behavior described by (2) above, and imbue ArrayBase with the remaining behavior described by (3) above.

The problem is, I really cannot find a way to implement Deref twice for the same type. Trait specialization (RFC 1210) might be able to do it, but that seems unlikely to land any time soon. I tried toying with having ArrayRef be a const generic-parameterized type (ArrayRefBase<const R: bool>) and adding an associated type const RAW: bool to the RawData trait (playground here); but apparently you can't use type parameters in const expressions. I even tried autoref specialization, but the blanket Deref implementation messes this up.

So I circle back and am left with using either a macro (if we want to hide meta) or a common trait (if we're ok with a fn meta(&self) -> &ArrayMeta) to implement the same behavior for ArrayRef and ArrayBase<S: RawData, D>.

Any ideas are greatly welcome; pointing out that I missed something and this really is possible would be even more welcome 😁 thanks!

[grothesque]

@akern40, it's great that you started implementing this RFC! Here are some comments. (I'm new to ndarray internals, and still pretty new to Rust, so I might be writing nonsense.)

• Regarding the problem with RawArrayView and RawArrayViewMut that you mention, my understanding is that this problem would exist as well if you chose not to pursue the "separate struct" implementation of ArrayRef but rather have pub type ArrayRef<A, D> = ArrayBase<RefRepr<A>, D>; Please correct me if I'm wrong.

• ndarray is already pretty complicated, and there was talk in this RFC of deprecating some storage types, presumably to simplify it. Perhaps all the Raw* things could be deprecated as well? (Are they even used a lot?) To take up the analogy of Array being like Vec, RawArrayView is like having a RawVecView that allows to call len or capacity but requires an unsafe call to be able to do anything with the data.

  Sure such a change would be pretty disruptive (if even feasible), but perhaps a little disruption is just what ndarray needs to wake up from its sleep.

• If deprecating Raw* is not feasible, the common trait is perhaps indeed the way to go?

[akern40]

Hey @grothesque! Glad you're interested, thanks for the comments. I saw you also commented on the maintainer issue - I'm just gonna keep this thread about this particular RFC and I'll get back to you in the other issue on the broader topic.

Design Insights

I've made some more design progress and, along the way, identified a few critical design decisions and implications. I'm going to try to outline them here as briefly as I can. Please keep in mind that all of these insights are only applicable insofar as I can figure out a design for them. Someone may come along on any one of these and provide a better path forward.

1. You're right, any design that tries to maintain a single type (even a generic one) for arrays cannot dereference to two different types, unless one of the above methods is discovered to work or another method that I don't see is available.

2. The use of Raw variants is fairly limited in the ndarray codebase, as far as I can see; however, I'm hesitant to just throw them out. If we want to act as a foundation for a Rust numerical ecosystem, it feels un-Rusty to eliminate the possibility for lower-level, unsafe, or more advanced usage which might necessitate the "raw pointer" version of a multidimensional array. It may even box the library in, much less other users. However, I've discovered that this isn't the real source of design complexity.

3. The real design complexity seems to stem from the use of different pointer types - i.e., Arc, Cow, Rc, or anything else that's not just NonNull. I haven't been able to figure out a design that doesn't either depend on a "third generic" (with the first two being dimensionality and element type) or abandon hope for a deref-based call structure. In particular, I can't figure out how to get a struct containing Arc<T> to deref to a struct containing NonNull<T>. Eliminating this capability would be considerably more simplifying than eliminating Raw variants.

Design Proposal

So to really crystallize my thoughts and progress, I've created what I'm hoping is the first of many gists. This one shows how to design a trait- and deref- based API without the ability to wrap the underlying pointer in Arc, Cow, or any others. I'm still hunting for a design that brings in that capability, but I can't quite figure it out yet.

There's a lot I'd like to say about this design, but this is already a long post so here's the summary:

1. Backwards-friendly: By creating structs for what used to be type aliases, this proposal would opt a lot of existing code into the new core design without changes.
2. This design unifies dim and strides into a single layout; this is really just slipping in a vote for simplifying that side of the house, but I think keeping dim and strides to start would be fine, and more backwards-compatible.
3. This design might benefit from the use of macros like portrait to simplify trait delegation.

This design achieves the following desired properties:

1. Eliminates the "third generic"
2. Reduces complexity by eliminating data trait bounds
3. Keeps the raw pointer type
4. Creates a more ergonomic deref-based way to accept function arguments
5. Allows the implementation of borrow-related traits like Borrow, ToOwned, etc to better fit in with the rust ecosystem.

Anyway, please let me know what you think! As I said above, I'll get to your other comment on the other issue soon.