vivdunstan

https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2025/11/21/move-expressions/?utm_source=atom_feed

https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2025/11/21/move-expressions/

This post explores another proposal in the space of ergonomic ref-counting that I am calling move expressions. To my mind, these are an alternative to explicit capture clauses, one that addresses many (but not all) of the goals from that design with improved ergonomics and readability.

TL;DR

The idea itself is simple, within a closure (or future), we add the option to write move($expr). This is a value expression (“rvalue”) that desugars into a temporary value that is moved into the closure. So

|| something(&move($expr))

is roughly equivalent to something like:

{ 
    let tmp = $expr;
    || something(&{tmp})
}

How it would look in practice

Let’s go back to one of our running examples, the “Cloudflare example”, which originated in this excellent blog post by the Dioxus folks. As a reminder, this is how the code looks today – note the let _some_value = ... lines for dealing with captures:

// task:  listen for dns connections
let _some_a = self.some_a.clone();
let _some_b = self.some_b.clone();
let _some_c = self.some_c.clone();
tokio::task::spawn(async move {
  	do_something_else_with(_some_a, _some_b, _some_c)
});

Under this proposal it would look something like this:

tokio::task::spawn(async {
    do_something_else_with(
        move(self.some_a.clone()),
        move(self.some_b.clone()),
        move(self.some_c.clone()),
    )
});

There are times when you would want multiple clones. For example, if you want to move something into a FnMut closure that will then give away a copy on each call, it might look like

data_source_iter
    .inspect(|item| {
        inspect_item(item, move(tx.clone()).clone())
        //                      ----------  -------
        //                           |         |
        //                   move a clone      |
        //                   into the closure  |
        //                                     |
        //                             clone the clone
        //                             on each iteration
    })
    .collect();

// some code that uses `tx` later...

Credit for this idea

This idea is not mine. It’s been floated a number of times. The first time I remember hearing it was at the RustConf Unconf, but I feel like it’s come up before that. Most recently it was proposed by Zachary Harrold on Zulip, who has also created a prototype called soupa. Zachary’s proposal, like earlier proposals I’ve heard, used the super keyword. Later on @simulacrum proposed using move, which to me is a major improvement, and that’s the version I ran with here.

This proposal makes closures more “continuous”

The reason that I love the move variant of this proposal is that it makes closures more “continuous” and exposes their underlying model a bit more clearly. With this design, I would start by explaining closures with move expressions and just teach move closures at the end, as a convenient default:

A Rust closure captures the places you use in the “minimal way that it can” – so || vec.len() will capture a shared reference to the vec, || vec.push(22) will capture a mutable reference, and || drop(vec) will take ownership of the vector.

You can use move expressions to control exactly what is captured: so || move(vec).push(22) will move the vector into the closure. A common pattern when you want to be fully explicit is to list all captures at the top of the closure, like so:

|| {
    let vec = move(input.vec); // take full ownership of vec
    let data = move(&cx.data); // take a reference to data
    let output_tx = move(output_tx); // take ownership of the output channel

    process(&vec, &mut output_tx, data)
}

As a shorthand, you can write move || at the top of the closure, which will change the default so that closures > take ownership of every captured variable. You can still mix-and-match with move expressions to get more control. > So the previous closure might be written more concisely like so:

move || {
    process(&input.vec, &mut output_tx, move(&cx.data))
    //       ---------       ---------       --------      
    //           |               |               |         
    //           |               |       closure still  
    //           |               |       captures a ref
    //           |               |       `&cx.data`        
    //           |               |                         
    //       because of the `move` keyword on the clsoure,
    //       these two are captured "by move"
    //       
}

This proposal makes move “fit in” for me

It’s a bit ironic that I like this, because it’s doubling down on part of Rust’s design that I was recently complaining about. In my earlier post on Explicit Capture Clauses I wrote that:

To be honest, I don’t like the choice of move because it’s so operational. I think if I could go back, I would try to refashion our closures around two concepts

• Attached closures (what we now call ||) would always be tied to the enclosing stack frame. They’d always have a lifetime even if they don’t capture anything.
• Detached closures (what we now call move ||) would capture by-value, like move today.

I think this would help to build up the intuition of “use detach || if you are going to return the closure from the current stack frame and use || otherwise”.

move expressions are, I think, moving in the opposite direction. Rather than talking about attached and detached, they bring us to a more unified notion of closures, one where you don’t have “ref closures” and “move closures” – you just have closures that sometimes capture moves, and a “move” closure is just a shorthand for using move expressions everywhere. This is in fact how closures work in the compiler under the hood, and I think it’s quite elegant.

Conclusion

I’m going to wrap up this post here. To be honest, what this design really has going for it, above anything else, is its simplicity and the way it generalizes Rust’s existing design. I love that. To me, it joins the set of “yep, we should clearly do that” pieces in this puzzle:

• Add a Share trait (I’ve gone back to preferring the name share 😁)
• Add move expressions

These both seem like solid steps forward. I am not yet persuaded that they get us all the way to the goal that I articulated in an earlier post:

“low-level enough for a Kernel, usable enough for a GUI”

but they are moving in the right direction.

https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2025/11/21/move-expressions/?utm_source=atom_feed

https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2025/11/21/move-expressions/