RFC 2996: Add Stream to std

libs (futures)

Summary

Introduce the Stream trait into the standard library, using the design from futures. Redirect the Stream trait definition in the futures-core crate (which is "pub-used" by the futures crate) to the standard library.

Motivation

Streams are a core async abstraction. These behave similarly to Iterator, but rather than blocking between each item yield, it allows other tasks to run while it waits.

People can do this currently using the Stream trait defined in the futures crate. However, we would like to add Stream to the standard library.

Including Stream in the standard library would clarify the stability guarantees of the trait. For example, if Tokio wishes to declare a 5 year stability period, having the Stream trait in the standard library means there are no concerns about the trait changing during that time (citation).

Examples of current crates that are consuming streams

async-h1

async-sse

Why a shared trait?

We eventually want dedicated syntax for working with streams, which will require a shared trait. This includes a trait for producing streams and a trait for consuming streams.

Guide-level explanation

A "stream" is the async version of an iterator.

The Iterator trait includes a next method, which computes and returns the next item in the sequence. The Stream trait includes the poll_next method to assist with defining a stream. In the future, we should add a next method for use when consuming and interacting with a stream (see the Future possiblilities section later in this RFC).

poll_next method

When implementing a Stream, users will define a poll_next method. The poll_next method asks if the next item is ready. If so, it returns the item. Otherwise, poll_next will return Poll::Pending.

Just as with a Future, returning Poll::Pending implies that the stream has arranged for the current task to be re-awoken when the data is ready.

// Defined in std::stream module
pub trait Stream {
    // Core items:
    type Item;
    fn poll_next(self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item>>;
    
    // Optional optimization hint, just like with iterators:
    #[inline]
    fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) {
        (0, None)
    }
}

The arguments to poll_next match that of the Future::poll method:

Usage

A user could create a stream as follows (Example taken from @yoshuawuyt's implementation pull request).

Creating a stream involves two steps: creating a struct to hold the stream's state, and then implementing Stream for that struct.

Let's make a stream named Counter which counts from 1 to 5:

#![feature(async_stream)]
# use core::stream::Stream;
# use core::task::{Context, Poll};
# use core::pin::Pin;

// First, the struct:

/// A stream which counts from one to five
struct Counter {
    count: usize,
}

// we want our count to start at one, so let's add a new() method to help.
// This isn't strictly necessary, but is convenient. Note that we start
// `count` at zero, we'll see why in `poll_next()`'s implementation below.
impl Counter {
    fn new() -> Counter {
        Counter { count: 0 }
    }
}

// Then, we implement `Stream` for our `Counter`:

impl Stream for Counter {
    // we will be counting with usize
    type Item = usize;

    // poll_next() is the only required method
    fn poll_next(mut self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item>> {
        // Increment our count. This is why we started at zero.
        self.count += 1;

        // Check to see if we've finished counting or not.
        if self.count < 6 {
            Poll::Ready(Some(self.count))
        } else {
            Poll::Ready(None)
        }
    }
}

Initial impls

There are a number of simple "bridge" impls that are also provided:

impl<S> Stream for Box<S>
where
    S: Stream + Unpin + ?Sized,
{
    type Item = <S as Stream>::Item
}

impl<S> Stream for &mut S
where
    S: Stream + Unpin + ?Sized,
{
    type Item = <S as Stream>::Item;
}

impl<S, T> Stream for Pin<P>
where
    P: DerefMut<Target=T> + Unpin,
    T: Stream,
{
    type Item = <T as Stream>::Item;
}

impl<S> Stream for AssertUnwindSafe<S>
where
    S: Stream, 
{
    type Item = <S as Stream>::Item;
}

Reference-level explanation

This section goes into details about various aspects of the design and why they ended up the way they did.

Where does Stream live in the std lib?

Stream will live in the core::stream module and be re-exported as std::stream.

It is possible that it could live in another area as well, though this follows the pattern of core::future.

Why use a poll method?

An alternative design for the stream trait would be to have a trait that defines an async next method:

trait Stream {
    type Item;
    
    async fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item>;
}

Unfortunately, async methods in traits are not currently supported, and there are a number of challenges to be resolved before they can be added.

Moreover, it is not clear yet how to make traits that contain async functions be dyn safe, and it is important to be able to pass around dyn Stream values without the need to monomorphize the functions that work with them.

Unfortunately, the use of poll does mean that it is harder to write stream implementations. The long-term fix for this, discussed in the Future possiblilities section, is dedicated generator syntax.

Rationale and alternatives

Where should stream live?

As mentioned above, core::stream is analogous to core::future. But, do we want to find some other naming scheme that can scale up to other future additions, such as io traits or channels?

Future possibilities

Next method

While users will be able to implement a Stream as defined in this RFC, they will not have a way to interact with it in the core library. As soon as we figure out a way to do it in an object safe manner, we should add a next method either in the Stream trait or elsewhere.

The Iterator trait includes a next method, which computes and returns the next item in the sequence. We should also implement a next method for Stream, similar to the implementation in the futures-util crate.

The core poll_next method is unergonomic; it does not let you iterate over the items coming out of the stream. Therefore, we include a few minimal convenience methods that are not dependent on any unstable features, such as next.

As @yoshuawuyts states in their pull request which adds core::stream::Stream to the standard library:

Unlike Iterator, Stream makes a distinction between the poll_next method which is used when implementing a Stream, and the next method which is used when consuming a stream. Consumers of Stream only need to consider next, which when called, returns a future which yields Option<Item>.

The future returned by next will yield Some(Item) as long as there are elements, and once they've all been exhausted, will yield None to indicate that iteration is finished. If we're waiting on something asynchronous to resolve, the future will wait until the stream is ready to yield again.

As defined in the Future docs:

Once a future has completed (returned Ready from poll), calling its poll method again may panic, block forever, or cause other kinds of problems; the Future trait places no requirements on the effects of such a call. However, as the poll method is not marked unsafe, Rust's usual rules apply: calls must never cause undefined behavior (memory corruption, incorrect use of unsafe functions, or the like), regardless of the future's state.

This is similar to the Future trait. The Future::poll method is rarely called directly, it is almost always used to implement other Futures. Interacting with futures is done through async/await.

We need something like the next() method in order to iterate over the stream directly in an async block or function. It is essentially an adapter from Stream to Future.

This would allow a user to await on a future:

while let Some(v) = stream.next().await {

}

We could also consider adding a try_next method, allowing a user to write:

while let Some(x) = s.try_next().await?

But this could also be written as:

while let Some(x) = s.next().await.transpose()?

More Usage Examples

Using the example of Stream implemented on a struct called Counter, the user would interact with the stream like so:

let mut counter = Counter::new();

let x = counter.next().await.unwrap();
println!("{}", x);

let x = counter.next().await.unwrap();
println!("{}", x);

let x = counter.next().await.unwrap();
println!("{}", x);

let x = counter.next().await.unwrap();
println!("{}", x);

let x = counter.next().await.unwrap();
println!("{}", x);
#
}

This would print 1 through 5, each on their own line.

An earlier draft of the RFC prescribed an implementation of the next method on the Stream trait. Unfortunately, as detailed in this comment, it made the stream non-object safe. More experimentation is required - and it may need to be an unstable language feature for more testing before it can be added to core.

More Convenience methods

The Iterator trait also defines a number of useful combinators, like map. The Stream trait being proposed here does not include any such conveniences. Instead, they are available via extension traits, such as the StreamExt trait offered by the futures crate.

The reason that we have chosen to exclude combinators is that a number of them would require access to async closures. As of this writing, async closures are unstable and there are a number of outstanding design issues to be resolved before they are added. Therefore, we've decided to enable progress on the stream trait by stabilizing a core, and to come back to the problem of extending it with combinators.

This path does carry some risk. Adding combinator methods can cause existing code to stop compiling due to the ambiguities in method resolution. We have had problems in the past with attempting to migrate iterator helper methods from itertools for this same reason.

While such breakage is technically permitted by our semver guidelines, it would obviously be best to avoid it, or at least to go to great lengths to mitigate its effects. One option would be to extend the language to allow method resolution to "favor" the extension trait in existing code, perhaps as part of an edition migration.

Designing such a migration feature is out of scope for this RFC.

IntoStream / FromStream traits

IntoStream

Iterators

Iterators have an IntoIterator that is used with for loops to convert items of other types to an iterator.

pub trait IntoIterator where
    <Self::IntoIter as Iterator>::Item == Self::Item, 
{
    type Item;

    type IntoIter: Iterator;

    fn into_iter(self) -> Self::IntoIter;
}

Examples are taken from the Rust docs on for loops and into_iter

let values = vec![1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

for x in values {
    println!("{}", x);
}

Desugars to:

let values = vec![1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
{
    let result = match IntoIterator::into_iter(values) {
        mut iter => loop {
            let next;
            match iter.next() {
                Some(val) => next = val,
                None => break,
            };
            let x = next;
            let () = { println!("{}", x); };
        },
    };
    result
}

Streams

We may want a trait similar to this for Stream. The IntoStream trait would provide a way to convert something into a Stream.

This trait could look like this:

pub trait IntoStream
where 
    <Self::IntoStream as Stream>::Item == Self::Item,
{
    type Item;

    type IntoStream: Stream;

    fn into_stream(self) -> Self::IntoStream;
}

This trait (as expressed by @taiki-e in a comment on a draft of this RFC) makes it easy to write streams in combination with async stream. For example:

type S(usize);

impl IntoStream for S {
    type Item = usize;
    type IntoStream: impl Stream<Item = Self::Item>;

    fn into_stream(self) -> Self::IntoStream {
        #[stream]
        async move {
            for i in 0..self.0 {
                yield i;
            }
        }
    }
}

FromStream

Iterators

Iterators have an FromIterator that is used to convert iterators into another type.

pub trait FromIterator<A> {

    fn from_iter<T>(iter: T) -> Self
    where
        T: IntoIterator<Item = A>;
}

It should be noted that this trait is rarely used directly, instead used through Iterator's collect method (source).

pub trait Iterator {
    fn collect<B>(self) -> B
    where
        B: FromIterator<Self::Item>,
    { ... }
}

Examples are taken from the Rust docs on iter and collect

let a = [1, 2, 3];

let doubled: Vec<i32> = a.iter()
                         .map(|&x| x * 2)
                         .collect();

Streams

We may want a trait similar to this for Stream. The FromStream trait would provide a way to convert a Stream into another type.

This trait could look like this:

pub trait FromStream<A> {
    async fn from_stream<T>(stream: T) -> Self
    where
        T: IntoStream<Item = A>;
}

We could potentially include a collect method for Stream as well.

pub trait Stream {
    async fn collect<B>(self) -> B
    where
        B: FromStream<Self::Item>,
    { ... }
}

When drafting this RFC, there was discussion about whether to implement from_stream for all T where T: FromIterator as well. FromStream is perhaps more general than FromIterator because the await point is allowed to suspend execution of the current function, but doesn't have to. Therefore, many (if not all) existing impls of FromIterator would work for FromStream as well. While this would be a good point for a future discussion, it is not in the scope of this RFC.

Converting an Iterator to a Stream

If a user wishes to convert an Iterator to a Stream, they may not be able to use IntoStream because a blanked impl for Iterator would conflict with more specific impls they may wish to write. Having a function that takes an impl Iterator<Item = T> and returns an impl Stream<Item = T> would be quite helpful.

The async-std crate has stream::from_iter. The futures-rs crate has stream::iter. Either of these approaches could work once we expose Stream in the standard library.

Adding this functionality is out of the scope of this RFC, but is something we should revisit once Stream is in the standard library.

Other Traits

Eventually, we may also want to add some (if not all) of the roster of traits we found useful for Iterator.

async_std::stream has created several async counterparts to the traits in std::iter. These include:

As detailed in previous sections, the migrations to add these traits are out of scope for this RFC.

Async iteration syntax

Currently, if someone wishes to iterate over a Stream as defined in the futures crate, they are not able to use for loops, they must use while let and next/try_next instead.

We may wish to extend the for loop so that it works over streams as well. 

#[async]
for elem in stream { ... }

One of the complications of using while let syntax is the need to pin. A for loop syntax that takes ownership of the stream would be able to do the pinning for you.

We may not want to make sequential processing "too easy" without also enabling parallel/concurrent processing, which people frequently want. One challenge is that parallel processing wouldn't naively permit early returns and other complex control flow. We could add a par_stream() method, similar to Rayon's par_iter().

Designing this extension is out of scope for this RFC. However, it could be prototyped using procedural macros today.

"Lending" streams

There has been much discussion around lending streams (also referred to as attached streams).

Definitions

Source

In a lending stream (also known as an "attached" stream), the Item that gets returned by Stream may be borrowed from self. It can only be used as long as the self reference remains live.

In a non-lending stream (also known as a "detached" stream), the Item that gets returned by Stream is "detached" from self. This means it can be stored and moved about independently from self.

This RFC does not cover the addition of lending streams (streams as implemented through this RFC are all non-lending streams). Lending streams depend on Generic Associated Types, which are not (at the time of this RFC) stable.

We can add the Stream trait to the standard library now and delay adding in this distinction between the two types of streams - lending and non-lending. The advantage of this is it would allow us to copy the Stream trait from futures largely 'as is'.

The disadvantage of this is functions that consume streams would first be written to work with Stream, and then potentially have to be rewritten later to work with LendingStreams.

Current Stream Trait

pub trait Stream {
    type Item;

    fn poll_next(self: Pin<&mut Self>, cx: &mut Context<'_>) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item>>;

    #[inline]
    fn size_hint(&self) -> (usize, Option<usize>) {
        (0, None)
    }
}

This trait, like Iterator, always gives ownership of each item back to its caller. This offers flexibility - such as the ability to spawn off futures processing each item in parallel.

Potential Lending Stream Trait

trait LendingStream<'s> {
    type Item<'a> where 's: 'a;

    fn poll_next<'a>(
        self: Pin<&'a mut Self>,
        cx: &mut Context<'_>,
    ) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item<'a>>>;
}

impl<S> LendingStream for S
where
    S: Stream,
{
    type Item<'_> = S::Item;
    
    fn poll_next<'s>(
        self: Pin<&'s mut Self>,
        cx: &mut Context<'_>,
    ) -> Poll<Option<Self::Item<'s>>> {
        Stream::poll_next(self, cx)
    }
}

This is a "conversion" trait such that anything which implements Stream can also implement LendingStream.

This trait captures the case where we re-use internal buffers. This would be less flexible for consumers, but potentially more efficient. Types could implement the LendingStream where they need to re-use an internal buffer and Stream if they do not. There is room for both.

We would also need to pursue the same design for iterators - whether through adding two traits or one new trait with a "conversion" from the old trait.

This also brings up the question of whether we should allow conversion in the opposite way - if every non-lending stream can become a lending one, should some lending streams be able to become non-lending ones?

Coherence

The impl above has a problem. As the Rust language stands today, we cannot cleanly convert impl Stream to impl LendingStream due to a coherence conflict.

If you have other impls like:

impl<T> Stream for Box<T> where T: Stream

and

impl<T> LendingStream for Box<T> where T: LendingStream

There is a coherence conflict for Box<impl Stream>, so presumably it will fail the coherence rules.

More examples are available here.

Resolving this would require either an explicit “wrapper” step or else some form of language extension.

It should be noted that the same applies to Iterator, it is not unique to Stream.

We may eventually want a super trait relationship available in the Rust language

trait Stream: LendingStream

This would allow us to leverage default impl.

These use cases for lending/non-lending streams need more thought, which is part of the reason it is out of the scope of this particular RFC.

Generator syntax

In the future, we may wish to introduce a new form of function - gen fn in iterators and async gen fn in async code that can contain yield statements. Calling such a function would yield a impl Iterator or impl Stream, for sync and async respectively. Given an "attached" or "borrowed" stream, the generator could yield references to local variables. Given a "detached" or "owned" stream, the generator could yield owned values or things that were borrowed from its caller.

In Iterators

gen fn foo() -> Value {
    yield value;
}

After desugaring, this would result in a function like:

fn foo() -> impl Iterator<Item = Value>

In Async Code

async gen fn foo() -> Value

After desugaring would result in a function like:

fn foo() -> impl Stream<Item = Value>

If we introduce -> impl Stream first, we will have to permit LendingStream in the future. Additionally, if we introduce LendingStream later, we'll have to figure out how to convert a LendingStream into a Stream seamlessly.

Differences between Iterator generators and Async generators

We want Stream and Iterator to work as analogously as possible, including when used with generators. However, in the current design, there are some crucial differences between the two.

Consider Iterator's core next method:

pub trait Iterator {
    type Item;

    fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item>;
}

Iterator does not require pinning its core next method. In order for a gen fn to operate with the Iterator ecosystem, there must be some kind of initial pinning step that converts its result into an iterator. This will be tricky, since you can't return a pinned value except by boxing.

The general shape will be:

gen_fn().pin_somehow().adapter1().adapter2()

With streams, the core interface is pinned, so pinning occurs at the last moment.

The general shape would be 

async_gen_fn().adapter1().adapter2().pin_somehow()

Pinning at the end, like with a stream, lets you build and return those adapters and then apply pinning at the end. This may be the more efficient setup and implies that, in order to have a gen fn that produces iterators, we will need to potentially disallow borrowing yields or implement some kind of PinnedIterator trait that can be "adapted" into an iterator by pinning.

For example: 

trait PinIterator {
    type Item;
}
impl<I: PinIterator, P: Deref<Target = I> + DerefMut> Iterator for Pin<P> {
    fn next(&mut self) -> Self::Item { self.as_mut().next() }
}

// this would be nice.. but would lead to name resolution ambiguity for our combinators 😬 
default impl<T: Iterator> PinIterator for T { .. }

Pinning also applies to the design of AsyncRead/AsyncWrite, which currently uses Pin even through there is no clear plan to make them implemented with generator type syntax. The asyncification of a signature is currently understood as pinned receiver + context arg + return poll.

Another key difference between Iterators and Streams is that futures are ultimately passed to some executor API like spawn which expects a 'static future. To achieve that, the futures contain all the state they need and references are internal to that state. Iterators are almost never required to be 'static by the APIs that consume them.

It is, admittedly, somewhat confusing to have Async generators require Pinning and Iterator generators to not require pinning, users may feel they are creating code in an unnatural way when using the Async generators. This will need to be discussed more when generators are proposed in the future.

Disallowing self-borrowing generators in gen fn

Another option is to make the generators returned by gen fn always be Unpin so that the user doesn't have to think about pinning unless they're already in an async context.

In the spirit of experimentation, boats has written the propane crate. This crate includes a #[propane] fn that changes the function signature to return impl Iterator and lets you yield. The non-async version uses (nightly-only) generators which are non-static, disallowing self-borrowing. In other words, you can't hold a reference to something on the stack across a yield.

This should still allow yielding from inside a for loop, as long as the for loop is over a borrowed input and not something owned by the stack frame.

Further designing generator functions is out of the scope of this RFC.

Copyright 2022 Nick Cameron and the RFC authors.