Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: add preliminary support for + use<..> precise_capturing syntax #17676

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Jul 25, 2024

Conversation

winstxnhdw
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

This PR adds basic support for the following syntax.

fn captures<'a: 'a, 'b: 'b, T>() -> impl Sized + use<'b, T> {}
//                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                          This opaque type does not capture `'a`.

fn outlives<'o, T: 'o>(_: T) {}

fn caller<'o, 'a, 'b: 'o, T: 'o>() {
    //        ~~
    //        ^ Note that we don't need `'a: 'o`.
    outlives::<'o>(captures::<'a, 'b, T>());
}

Related to #17598

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. has-merge-commits S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 22, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 22, 2024

There are merge commits (commits with multiple parents) in your changes. We have a no merge policy so these commits will need to be removed for this pull request to be merged.

You can start a rebase with the following commands:

$ # rebase
$ git pull --rebase https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer.git master
$ git push --force-with-lease

The following commits are merge commits:

@rustbot rustbot removed has-merge-commits S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 22, 2024
@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Jul 24, 2024

#[derive(Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub enum TypeBoundKind {
/// Trait
PathType(ast::PathType),
/// for<'a> ...
ForType(ast::ForType),
/// 'a
Lifetime(ast::Lifetime),
}
impl ast::TypeBound {
pub fn kind(&self) -> TypeBoundKind {
if let Some(path_type) = support::children(self.syntax()).next() {
TypeBoundKind::PathType(path_type)
} else if let Some(for_type) = support::children(self.syntax()).next() {
TypeBoundKind::ForType(for_type)
} else if let Some(lifetime) = self.lifetime() {
TypeBoundKind::Lifetime(lifetime)
} else {
unreachable!()
}
}
}
needs a change as well

crates/syntax/rust.ungram Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
@winstxnhdw
Copy link
Contributor Author

#[derive(Clone, Debug, PartialEq, Eq, Hash)]
pub enum TypeBoundKind {
/// Trait
PathType(ast::PathType),
/// for<'a> ...
ForType(ast::ForType),
/// 'a
Lifetime(ast::Lifetime),
}
impl ast::TypeBound {
pub fn kind(&self) -> TypeBoundKind {
if let Some(path_type) = support::children(self.syntax()).next() {
TypeBoundKind::PathType(path_type)
} else if let Some(for_type) = support::children(self.syntax()).next() {
TypeBoundKind::ForType(for_type)
} else if let Some(lifetime) = self.lifetime() {
TypeBoundKind::Lifetime(lifetime)
} else {
unreachable!()
}
}
}

needs a change as well

It's a lot more complex than I thought. Few things I'd like to discuss. What should this new use TypeBoundKind be named? I am not sure if we can just reuse the old ast::Use. And if we do, I'll have to add the generic_param_list method which may add some confusion as it isn't used in use declarations.

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Jul 25, 2024

Use(ast::GenericParamList) should work fine, note that we can ignore this when lowering later for now. We just want this here to prevent the panics

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Jul 25, 2024

match node.kind() {
ast::TypeBoundKind::PathType(path_type) => {
let m = match node.question_mark_token() {
Some(_) => TraitBoundModifier::Maybe,
None => TraitBoundModifier::None,
};
lower_path_type(path_type)
.map(|p| TypeBound::Path(p, m))
.unwrap_or(TypeBound::Error)
}
ast::TypeBoundKind::ForType(for_type) => {
let lt_refs = match for_type.generic_param_list() {
Some(gpl) => gpl
.lifetime_params()
.flat_map(|lp| lp.lifetime().map(|lt| Name::new_lifetime(&lt)))
.collect(),
None => Box::default(),
};
let path = for_type.ty().and_then(|ty| match ty {
ast::Type::PathType(path_type) => lower_path_type(path_type),
_ => None,
});
match path {
Some(p) => TypeBound::ForLifetime(lt_refs, p),
None => TypeBound::Error,
}
}
ast::TypeBoundKind::Lifetime(lifetime) => {
TypeBound::Lifetime(LifetimeRef::new(&lifetime))
}
}

needs to handle the new variant, can just return TypeBound::Error in there

@Veykril
Copy link
Member

Veykril commented Jul 25, 2024

CI failure should be unrelated now
@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2024

📌 Commit 9f74787 has been approved by Veykril

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2024

⌛ Testing commit 9f74787 with merge 0ba6f4e...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 25, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: Veykril
Pushing 0ba6f4e to master...

@bors bors merged commit 0ba6f4e into rust-lang:master Jul 25, 2024
8 of 11 checks passed
@RalfJung RalfJung mentioned this pull request Aug 1, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
…=spastorino

Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang#127228
  - rust-lang#127632
  - rust-lang#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang#123468
* rust-lang#125836
* rust-lang#126049
* rust-lang#126753

Closes rust-lang#123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
…=spastorino

Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang#127228
  - rust-lang#127632
  - rust-lang#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang#123468
* rust-lang#125836
* rust-lang#126049
* rust-lang#126753

Closes rust-lang#123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2024
Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [#125836](rust-lang/rust#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [#125836](rust-lang/rust#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang/rust#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang/rust#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang/rust#127228
  - rust-lang/rust#127632
  - rust-lang/rust#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang/rust#123468
* rust-lang/rust#125836
* rust-lang/rust#126049
* rust-lang/rust#126753

Closes #123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang/rust#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants