Add rust spec RFC.

Author: m-ou-se

text/0000-rust-spec.md

@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+- Feature Name: `rust_spec`
+- Start Date: 2022-12-06
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+We should start working on a Rust specification.
+
+# Goal of this RFC
+
+The goal of this RFC is to reach consensus on:
+
+- Whether we want a specification, and (if so),
+- Some initial goals and non-goals, and
+- How we want the work to be organised and coordinated.
+
+This RFC _does not_ define the full scope of the specification
+or discuss any details of how it would look like.
+It only provides the minimal details necessary to be able to kick off the Rust specification work.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Why do we want a Rust specification at all?
+
+There are many different kind of Rust users that would benefit from a Rust specification in their own way.
+Things like the Rust Reference, the Unsafe Code Guidelines Project, the Rustonomicon, and so on,
+all exist to fulfill certain needs of Rust users.
+Unfortunately, their use is currently limited, because none of these are complete, entirely accurate, or normative.
+
+Authors of unsafe code could benefit a lot from clear definitions of what is and isn't undefined behaviour.
+Safety critical Rust software won't pass certification without a specification that clearly specifies how Rust code behaves.
+Proposals and discussions about new Rust language features could be more efficient and precise
+using accurately defined terms that everyone agrees on.
+Questions about subtle interactions between features of the language could be answered
+using precise information from a specification, instead a combination of guesses and several non-authoritative sources.
+
+# Current state
+
+Languages like C and C++ are standardized.
+Rust is not. Standardization comes down to, basically:
+
+1. Having an accurate specification (a document)
+2. An (open) process for evolution of the language
+3. Stability
+
+Rust currently already has 2 and 3, but not 1.
+
+For 1, we currently have:
+the (incomplete) [Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/),
+the [Standard Library Reference Documentation](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/),
+the [Rust Nomicon](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nomicon/),
+the [Unsafe Code Guidelines Project](https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/),
+[Miri](https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/),
+the collection of [accepted RFCs](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/),
+the [Ferrocene Language Specification](https://spec.ferrocene.dev/),
+lots context and decisions spread over [tons of GitHub issues](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/),
+[MiniRust](https://github.com/RalfJung/minirust),
+the [source code](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/),
+and more.
+
+These are currently all incomplete, and/or not a good source to rely on.
+
+More background information is available in [this blog post](https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-standard/).
+
+# Goals and non-goals
+
+- The goal of the Rust specification work is the creation of a document, the Rust specification.
+
+- The goal is _not_ to change how the language evolves;
+  the relevant teams (Language, Libs-API, …) remain in charge of the evolution of their respective parts of Rust,
+  and will continue to use processes as they see fit (e.g. RFCs).
+
+- The specification will only be considered "official" once the relevant teams have approved of its contents.
+  Changes to the official specification must be approved by the relevant team(s).
+
+- The goal is to serve the needs of Rust users, such as
+  authors of unsafe Rust code, those working on safety critical Rust software,
+  language designers, maintainers of Rust tooling, and so on.
+
+- It is _not_ a primary goal of the specification to aid in the development of alternative Rust implementations,
+  although authors of alternative compilers might still find the specification to be useful.
+
+  What this means is that, unlike the C or C++ standard,
+  the Rust specification does not provide a set of requirements for a compiler to be able to call itself "a Rust™ compiler".
+  Instead, it specifies the behaviour of the Rust compiler.
+  (So, not "A Rust implementation should …", but instead "Rust will …".)
+
+- The scope remains to be determined, but at least includes all topics currently included in 
+  the (incomplete) [Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/).
+
+- The Rust specification is expected to replace the current Rust Reference.
+
+- The scope of the specification can grow over time, depending on the needs of Rust users and
+  time and motivation of those working on it.
+
+  For example, it might grow over time to also specify details of Cargo,
+  compiler flags, procedural macros, or other parts that we might initially consider out of scope.
+
+- The specification is specific to the latest version of Rust.
+  A copy of the specification is included with each Rust release,
+  as we currently already do with much of our documentation.
+
+  While the specification might include notes about the Rust version that a feature was introduced in
+  for informative purposes (similar to standard library documentation),
+  it does not attempt to accurately specify older, unsupported versions of Rust.
+
+- The specification specifies all Rust _editions_, as supported by the latest version of the Rust compiler.
+
+- Once the specification reaches an initial usable version,
+  the relevant teams are expected to incorporate it in their process for language evolution.
+  For example, the language team could require a new language feature to be included
+  in the specification as a requirement for stabilization.
+
+- The specification will be written in English and will be freely available under a permissive license
+  that allows for translations and other derived works, just like all our existing documentation and code.
+
+# Coordination and editing
+
+Writing, editing, and in general coordinating all that's necessary for the creation of a Rust specification is a large amount for work.
+While there are many volunteers willing to work on specific parts of it,
+it's unlikely we'd end up with a complete, consistent, properly maintained specification if we rely entirely on volunteers.
+
+So this RFC proposes that we ask the Rust Foundation to coordinate and take responsibility
+for the parts of the work that would otherwise not get done.
+The foundation should hire a technical editor (or perhaps multiple people)
+who will work with the Rust teams and contributors to create the Rust specification.
+The editor will be responsible for maintaining the document and will coordinate with the relevant teams
+(e.g. the language team, the operational semantics team, the compiler, the types team, the library API team, and so on)
+to collect all relevant information and make sure that consensus is reached on everything that will end up in the official specification.
+
+The relevant Rust teams keep authority on their respective parts of Rust.
+The Rust Foundation supports and coordinates the work, but the Rust teams will remain in charge of what Rust is.
+
+# Questions deliberately left open
+
+This RFC deliberately leaves many questions open, to be answered later in the process.
+For example:
+
+- The starting point of the Rust specification.
+
+  The Rust specification could take the [Ferrocene Specification](https://spec.ferrocene.dev/) or
+  the [Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/) as starting point,
+  or start from scratch, as the editor sees fit.
+  (The contents will still require approval from the Rust teams, regardless.)
+
+- The shape, form, and structure of the document.
+
+- The scope of the Rust specification.
+
+  It should include at least all topics covered in
+  [the Rust Reference](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/reference/),
+  but the scope can grow depending on ongoing efforts in the Rust team and the needs of the Rust community.
+
+- How certain topics will be specified.
+
+  Certain parts of the specification might use a formal language
+  for specifying behavior or syntax.
+  For example, the grammar might be specified as EBNF,
+  and parts of the borrow checker or memory model might be specified by
+  a more formal definition that the document refers to.
+
+- The depth of the specification for various topics.
+
+  For example, it might specify only the existence of `#[allow(…)]` (etc.) without naming any lints,
+  or at the other extreme it might fully specify the behaviour of every single lint.
+  As another example, it could only specify the overall guarantees of the borrow checker
+  (e.g. "it won't allow UB in safe code"), or it could precisely specify what currently is and isn't accepted by the borrow checker.
+  The right level of detail for each topic should be discussed and agreed upon by the involved parties,
+  and can change over time.