The guidelines below were approved by RFC #236.
Errors fall into one of three categories:
The basic principle of the convention is that:
An error is catastrophic if there is no meaningful way for the current thread to continue after the error occurs.
Catastrophic errors are extremely rare, especially outside of
Canonical examples: out of memory, stack overflow.
For errors like stack overflow, Rust currently aborts the process, but could in principle panic, which (in the best case) would allow reporting and recovery from a supervisory thread.
An API may define a contract that goes beyond the type checking enforced by the compiler. For example, slices support an indexing operation, with the contract that the supplied index must be in bounds.
Contracts can be complex and involve more than a single function invocation. For
RefCell type requires that
borrow_mut not be called until all
existing borrows have been relinquished.
A contract violation is always a bug, and for bugs we follow the Erlang philosophy of "let it crash": we assume that software will have bugs, and we design coarse-grained thread boundaries to report, and perhaps recover, from these bugs.
One subtle aspect of these guidelines is that the contract for a function is chosen by an API designer -- and so the designer also determines what counts as a violation.
This RFC does not attempt to give hard-and-fast rules for designing contracts. However, here are some rough guidelines:
Prefer expressing contracts through static types whenever possible.
It must be possible to write code that uses the API without violating the contract.
Contracts are most justified when violations are inarguably bugs -- but this is surprisingly rare.
Consider whether the API client could benefit from the contract-checking logic. The checks may be expensive. Or there may be useful programming patterns where the client does not want to check inputs before hand, but would rather attempt the operation and then find out whether the inputs were invalid.
When a contract violation is the only kind of error a function may encounter
-- i.e., there are no obstructions to its success other than "bad" inputs --
Option instead is especially warranted. Clients can then use
unwrap to assert that they have passed valid input, or re-use the error
checking done by the API for their own purposes.
When in doubt, use loose contracts and instead return a
An operation is obstructed if it cannot be completed for some reason, even though the operation's contract has been satisfied. Obstructed operations may have (documented!) side effects -- they are not required to roll back after encountering an obstruction. However, they should leave the data structures in a "coherent" state (satisfying their invariants, continuing to guarantee safety, etc.).
Obstructions may involve external conditions (e.g., I/O), or they may involve aspects of the input that are not covered by the contract.
Canonical examples: file not found, parse error.
represents either a success (yielding
T) or failure (yielding
Result, a function allows its clients to discover and react to
obstructions in a fine-grained way.
Option type should not be used for "obstructed" operations; it
should only be used when a
None return value could be considered a
"successful" execution of the operation.
This is of course a somewhat subjective question, but a good litmus
test is: would a reasonable client ever ignore the result? The
Result type provides a lint that ensures the result is actually
Option does not, and this difference of behavior
can help when deciding between the two types.
Another litmus test: can the operation be understood as asking a
question (possibly with sideeffects)? Operations like
pop on a
vector can be viewed as asking for the contents of the first element,
with the side effect of removing it if it exists -- with an
An API should not provide both
panicking versions of an
operation. It should provide just the
Result version, allowing clients to use
unwrap instead as needed. This is part of the general pattern of
cutting down on redundant variants by instead using method chaining.