HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
rust-lang
a-mir-formality
Rust2023–2026
rust-lang / a-mir-formality

a-mir-formality

a model of MIR and the Rust type/trait system

3Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
372GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

a model of MIR and the Rust type/trait system

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-08-18 02:05:13 UTC to 2026-10-13 16:39:29 UTC.

012023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20232024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20242025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
It's a work in progress. The Reference (https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference) is slowly getting more complete over time. Other ongoing efforts include a-mir-formality (https://github.com/rust-lang/a-mir-formality), minirust (https://github.com/minirust/minirust), the FLS (https://github.com/rust-lang/fls), and Rust via Desugarings (https://nadrieril.github.io/rust-via-desugarings/). But writing a 100% complete and correct formal spec is hard! Not even C gets this right, the C standard has holes which lead to miscompilations and UB in practice: https://www.ralfj.de/blog/2020/12/14/provenance.html
In 11 year old unsoundness bugs found in Rust borrow checker
The comparison isn't with rust today, but the long term differences between the languages. Rust has a straightforward path to rectifying the standardization issue and enough community momentum to succeed. For example, Rust has an in-progress specification, here's the (currently empty) repo: https://github.com/rust-lang/spec. There's also MIR, a de-sugared internal representation that's sufficiently well specified to build formal models of (see https://github.com/rust-lang/a-mir-formality and https://github.com/rust-lang/miri), as well as the ferrocene spec (https://spec.ferrocene.dev/general.html) that's suitable for certification authorities (if not actually useful) and of course the rust reference/RFCs that are actually usable by people. Plus, the fact that everyone in the rust community has standardized on one compiler and one package
Read the rest
manager (for better or worse) means that the language team has a much better insight into specification breakages than the ISO process of languages like C and C++. I can start writing stuff today and be confident that any changes will be minor if necessary when the language catches up. I'm more than happy to have this discussion over email if you want to move it off HN, too.
In US government wants devs to stop using C and C++
Racket is very used in the PLT community (programming language theory) for prototyping programming languages. Lots of cool stuff in this area. For example, the MIR formality [0] project of the Rust programming language to formalize MIR (their intermediate language) was first prototyped in Racket [1], then rewritten in Rust. [1]'s readme give a rationale: > For the time being, the model is implemented in PLT Redex. PLT Redex was chosen because it is ridiculously accessible and fun to use. It lets you write down type system rules and operational semantics and then execute them, using a notation that is very similar to what is commonly used in published papers. You can also write collections of unit tests and fuzz your model by generating test programs automatically. > The hope is that PLT Redex will prove to be a sufficiently accessible too
Read the rest
l that many Rust contributors will be able to understand, play with, and extend the model. > One downside of PLT Redex is that it doesn't scale naturally to performing proofs. We may choose to port the model to another system at some point, or maintain multiple variants. [0] https://github.com/rust-lang/a-mir-formality [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/a-mir-formality/tree/1f40120f09...
In My resignation letter as R7RS-large chair

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.