Copy type ergonomics


There are a number of pain points with Copy types that the lang team is interested in exploring, though active experimentation is not currently ongoing.

Some key problems are:

Copy cannot be implemented with non-Copy members

There are standard library types where the lack of a Copy impl is an active pain point, e.g., MaybeUninit and UnsafeCell, when the contained type is actually Copy.


  • unsafe impl Copy for T which avoids the requirement that T is recursively Copy, but is obviously unsafe.
  • Copy is dangerous on types like UnsafeCell where &UnsafeCell<T> otherwise would not permit access to T in safe code.

Copy types can be (unintentionally) copied

Even if a type is Copy (e.g., [u8; 1024]) it may not be a good idea to make use of that in practice, since copying large amounts of data is slow. This is primarily a performance concern, so the problem is usually that these copies are easy to miss. However, depending on the size of the buffer, it can also be a correctness concern as it may cause an unintended stack overflow with too many accidental copies.

Should we want to lint on this code, deciding on a size threshold may be difficult. It's not generally possible for the compiler to know whether a particular copy operation is likely to lead to stack overflow or undesirable performance. We don't have examples yet of cases where there's desirable large copies (that should not be linted against) or concrete cases where the copies are accidental; collecting this information would be worthwhile.

Implementations of Copy on closures and arrays are the prime example of Rust currently being overeager with the defaults in some contexts.

This also comes up with Copy impls on Range, which would generally be desirable but is error-prone given the Iterator/IntoIterator impls on ranges.

The example here does not compile today (since Range is not Copy), but would be unintuitive if it did.

fn main() {
let mut x = 0..10;
let mut c = move ||;
println!("{:?}",; // prints 0
println!("{:?}", c()); // prints 0, because the captured x is implicitly copied.

This example illustrates the range being copied into the closure, while the user may have expected the name "x" to refer to the same range in both cases.

The move keyword here likely disambiguates this particular case for users, but in closures with more captures it may be not as obvious that the range type in particular was copied in.

A lint has been proposed to permit Copy impls on types where Copy is likely not desirable with particular conditions (e.g., Copy of IntoIterator-implementing types after iteration).

Note that "large copies" comes up with moves as well (which are copies, just taking ownership as well), so a size-based lint is plausibly desirable for both.


References to Copy types

Frequently when dealing with code generic over T you end up needing things like [u8]::contains(&5) which is ugly and annoying. Iterators of copy types also produce &&u64 and similar constructs which can produce unexpected type errors.

fn main() {
for x in &vec![1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] {
    process(*x); // <-- annoying that we need `*x`

fn process(x: i32) { }

fn main() {
fn sum_even(v: &[u32]) -> u32 {
    // **v is annoying
    v.iter().filter(|v| **v % 2 == 0).sum()

Note that this means that you in most cases want to "boil down" to the inner type when dealing with references, i.e., &&u32 you actually want u32, not &u32. Notably, though, this may not be true if the Copy type is something more complex (e.g., a future Copy Cell), since then &Cell is quite different from a Cell, the latter being likely useless for modification at least.

There is also plausibly performance left on the table with types like &&u64.

Note that this interacts with the unintentional copies (especially of large structures).

This could plausibly be done with moved values as well, so long as the semantics match the syntax (e.g. wants_ref(foo) acts like wants_ref(&{foo})) similar to how one can pass &mut to something that only wants &. This would be a tradeoff: in some cases people may want the type-checker to flag such cases and require explicitly taking a reference, while in other cases people may want the compiler to automatically make such code work. We would want to consider and evaluate this tradeoff, and whether we can usefully separate such cases.