From 9182409b19acf586b965bbb4ffd979ac11a0b989 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?G=C3=A1bor=20Lehel?= <glaebhoerl@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 19:45:59 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Lose the tick

---
 text/0000-lose-the-tick.md | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 text/0000-lose-the-tick.md

diff --git a/text/0000-lose-the-tick.md b/text/0000-lose-the-tick.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..bdd38ab2b4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/text/0000-lose-the-tick.md
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+- Start Date: 2015-01-10
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+
+# Summary
+
+Remove the `'` sigil from lifetimes. Instead of a `'` sigil being required
+everywhere a lifetime is *mentioned*, the `lifetime` keyword is used where a
+lifetime variable is *introduced*. As this already entails changing existing
+code everywhere explicit lifetimes are involved, a couple of related tweaks to
+reference and lifetime syntax are also floated.
+
+Old syntax:
+
+    fn get_mut<'a>(foo: &'a mut Foo) -> &'a mut Bar { ... }
+
+New syntax (pick one):
+
+ *      fn get_mut<lifetime a>(foo: &a mut Foo) -> &a mut Bar { ... }
+
+ *      fn get_mut<lifetime a>(foo: &mut a Foo) -> &mut a Bar { ... }
+
+ *      fn get_mut<lifetime a>(foo: &mut{a} Foo) -> &mut{a} Bar { ... }
+
+
+# Motivation
+
+The `'` sigil on lifetimes is, for newcomers to the language, visual noise with
+little discernible meaning. The unmatched quote is also extremely unnatural for
+those accustomed to C-style syntax: our main target audience. (Some of the
+author's more knowledgeable friends, acquainted with functional programming
+languages and not only C, have expressed the sentiment that they find it weird,
+and always reflexively want to insert the closing quote.) The rest of Rust's
+syntax does a fantastic job of fitting new concepts into a familiar C-style
+syntax in an intuitive wayl; it's only the `'` sigil on lifetimes which sticks
+out like a sore thumb and breaks the metaphor.
+
+The new syntax with the `lifetime` keyword is more explicit, meaning it is more
+verbose and provides greater clarity. Considering that due to excellent lifetime
+elision, explicit lifetime variables are infrequently required, and that
+lifetimes are a concept not to be found in any other popular language, this
+seems like an obviously worthwhile tradeoff.
+
+(This syntax also meshes well with the author's personal preference for
+[the future syntax of kind ascriptions](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2ny8c1/rust_generics_and_collections/cmiqhyx),
+should we add them.)
+
+
+# Detailed design
+
+As described in the summary, lifetimes would lose the `'` sigil, and would
+instead be introduced with the `lifetime` keyword. For lifetime arguments to
+user-defined types, this would be the extent of it:
+
+    struct Foo<lifetime a> { ... }
+
+    struct Bar<lifetime a> { foo: Foo<a> }
+
+    struct Baz { foo: Foo<static> } // `'static`, as well
+
+For the built-in reference types, we have a couple of options. One is to do just
+the same, and simply drop the `'`:
+
+    struct Foo<lifetime a> {
+        cow: &a Cow,
+        chicken: &a mut Chicken
+    }
+
+While we're doing this, however, we could also take the opportunity to fix up
+the oddity that, in the case of `&mut`, the lifetime separates the `&` from the
+`mut`. (The type itself is generally thought of as being named `&mut`;
+everywhere else in the language, it written that way as a single unit.) Then we
+would have:
+
+    struct Foo<lifetime a> {
+        cow: &a Cow,
+        chicken: &mut a Chicken
+    }
+
+We can go one step further, however, and opt for even more suggestive syntax:
+
+    struct Foo<lifetime a> {
+        cow: &{a} Cow,
+        chicken: &mut{a} Chicken
+    }
+
+This makes the type easier to parse visually, and makes it more obvious that the
+`a` is a special modifier of the reference. (When lifetimes are elided, we have
+`&T`; from `&{a} T`, it is clear that the `{a}` part is new; from `&a T`, it's
+less immediately apparent which part is what.) This syntax is also suggestive
+of the idea that the reference is valid within the `{ }` block `a`: while this
+is not *perfectly* accurate (lifetimes don't, or won't, always precisely
+correspond to scopes), as a near approximation, it can nonetheless be a very
+helpful intuition to have.
+
+Finally, labelled loops would also lose their ticks:
+
+    x: loop {
+        loop {
+            break x;
+        }
+    }
+
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+> What happens during the alpha cycle?
+>
+> If you’re already a Rust user, the first thing you’ll notice during the alpha
+> cycle is a dramatic drop in the pace of breaking changes.