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

Tracking issue for RFC 3617 precise capturing in traits #130044

Open
3 of 7 tasks
traviscross opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
3 of 7 tasks

Tracking issue for RFC 3617 precise capturing in traits #130044

traviscross opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 1 comment
Labels
C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC F-precise_capturing_in_traits `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` F-precise_capturing `#![feature(precise_capturing)]` S-tracking-needs-to-bake Status: The implementation is "complete" but it needs time to bake. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@traviscross
Copy link
Contributor

traviscross commented Sep 6, 2024

The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)].

This tracking issue covers extending the precise_capturing feature to allow for the partial capturing of generic parameters within trait definitions.

About tracking issues

Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation. They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions. A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature. Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.

Steps

Unresolved Questions

TODO.

Implementation History

Related

TODO.

cc @compiler-errors

@traviscross traviscross added T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC F-precise_capturing `#![feature(precise_capturing)]` F-precise_capturing_in_traits `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` labels Sep 6, 2024
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

Because I thought I was seeing double for a moment, for future reference, these two issues are related for obvious reasons, but currently...

matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2024
…in-traits, r=spastorino

Precise capturing in traits

This PR begins to implement `feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)`, which enables using the `impl Trait + use<..>` syntax for RPITITs. It implements this by giving the desugared GATs variance, and representing the uncaptured lifetimes as bivariant, like how opaque captures work.

Right now, I've left out implementing a necessary extension to the `refining_impl_trait` lint, and also I've made it so that all RPITITs always capture the parameters that come from the trait, because I'm not totally yet convinced that it's sound to not capture these args. It's certainly required to capture the type and const parameters from the trait (e.g. Self), or else users could bivariantly relate two RPITIT args that come from different impls, but region parameters don't affect trait selection in the same way, so it *may* be possible to relax this in the future. Let's stay conservative for now, though.

I'm not totally sure what tests could be added on top of the ones I already added, since we really don't need to exercise the `precise_capturing` feature but simply what makes it special for RPITITs.

r? types

Tracking issue:
* rust-lang#130044
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2024
…in-traits, r=spastorino

Precise capturing in traits

This PR begins to implement `feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)`, which enables using the `impl Trait + use<..>` syntax for RPITITs. It implements this by giving the desugared GATs variance, and representing the uncaptured lifetimes as bivariant, like how opaque captures work.

Right now, I've left out implementing a necessary extension to the `refining_impl_trait` lint, and also I've made it so that all RPITITs always capture the parameters that come from the trait, because I'm not totally yet convinced that it's sound to not capture these args. It's certainly required to capture the type and const parameters from the trait (e.g. Self), or else users could bivariantly relate two RPITIT args that come from different impls, but region parameters don't affect trait selection in the same way, so it *may* be possible to relax this in the future. Let's stay conservative for now, though.

I'm not totally sure what tests could be added on top of the ones I already added, since we really don't need to exercise the `precise_capturing` feature but simply what makes it special for RPITITs.

r? types

Tracking issue:
* rust-lang#130044
workingjubilee added a commit to workingjubilee/rustc that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2024
…in-traits, r=spastorino

Precise capturing in traits

This PR begins to implement `feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)`, which enables using the `impl Trait + use<..>` syntax for RPITITs. It implements this by giving the desugared GATs variance, and representing the uncaptured lifetimes as bivariant, like how opaque captures work.

Right now, I've left out implementing a necessary extension to the `refining_impl_trait` lint, and also I've made it so that all RPITITs always capture the parameters that come from the trait, because I'm not totally yet convinced that it's sound to not capture these args. It's certainly required to capture the type and const parameters from the trait (e.g. Self), or else users could bivariantly relate two RPITIT args that come from different impls, but region parameters don't affect trait selection in the same way, so it *may* be possible to relax this in the future. Let's stay conservative for now, though.

I'm not totally sure what tests could be added on top of the ones I already added, since we really don't need to exercise the `precise_capturing` feature but simply what makes it special for RPITITs.

r? types

Tracking issue:
* rust-lang#130044
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2024
…in-traits, r=spastorino

Precise capturing in traits

This PR begins to implement `feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)`, which enables using the `impl Trait + use<..>` syntax for RPITITs. It implements this by giving the desugared GATs variance, and representing the uncaptured lifetimes as bivariant, like how opaque captures work.

Right now, I've left out implementing a necessary extension to the `refining_impl_trait` lint, and also I've made it so that all RPITITs always capture the parameters that come from the trait, because I'm not totally yet convinced that it's sound to not capture these args. It's certainly required to capture the type and const parameters from the trait (e.g. Self), or else users could bivariantly relate two RPITIT args that come from different impls, but region parameters don't affect trait selection in the same way, so it *may* be possible to relax this in the future. Let's stay conservative for now, though.

I'm not totally sure what tests could be added on top of the ones I already added, since we really don't need to exercise the `precise_capturing` feature but simply what makes it special for RPITITs.

r? types

Tracking issue:
* rust-lang#130044
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#131033 - compiler-errors:precise-capturing-in-traits, r=spastorino

Precise capturing in traits

This PR begins to implement `feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)`, which enables using the `impl Trait + use<..>` syntax for RPITITs. It implements this by giving the desugared GATs variance, and representing the uncaptured lifetimes as bivariant, like how opaque captures work.

Right now, I've left out implementing a necessary extension to the `refining_impl_trait` lint, and also I've made it so that all RPITITs always capture the parameters that come from the trait, because I'm not totally yet convinced that it's sound to not capture these args. It's certainly required to capture the type and const parameters from the trait (e.g. Self), or else users could bivariantly relate two RPITIT args that come from different impls, but region parameters don't affect trait selection in the same way, so it *may* be possible to relax this in the future. Let's stay conservative for now, though.

I'm not totally sure what tests could be added on top of the ones I already added, since we really don't need to exercise the `precise_capturing` feature but simply what makes it special for RPITITs.

r? types

Tracking issue:
* rust-lang#130044
jhpratt added a commit to jhpratt/rust that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2024
Check `use<..>` in RPITIT for refinement

`#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` allows users to write `+ use<>` bounds on RPITITs to control what lifetimes are captured by the RPITIT.

Since RPITITs currently also warn for refinement in implementations, this PR extends that refinement check for cases where we *undercapture* in an implementation, since that may be indirectly "promising" a more relaxed outlives bound than the impl author intended.

For an opaque to be refining, we need to capture *fewer* parameters than those mentioned in the captured params of the trait. For example:

```
trait TypeParam<T> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized;
}
// Indirectly capturing a lifetime param through a type param substitution.
impl<'a> TypeParam<&'a ()> for i32 {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
    //~^ WARN impl trait in impl method captures fewer lifetimes than in trait
}
```

Since the opaque in the method (implicitly) captures `use<Self, T>`, and `Self = i32, T = &'a ()` in the impl, we must mention `'a` in our `use<..>` on the impl.

Tracking:
* rust-lang#130044
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#132795 - compiler-errors:refine-rpitit, r=lcnr

Check `use<..>` in RPITIT for refinement

`#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` allows users to write `+ use<>` bounds on RPITITs to control what lifetimes are captured by the RPITIT.

Since RPITITs currently also warn for refinement in implementations, this PR extends that refinement check for cases where we *undercapture* in an implementation, since that may be indirectly "promising" a more relaxed outlives bound than the impl author intended.

For an opaque to be refining, we need to capture *fewer* parameters than those mentioned in the captured params of the trait. For example:

```
trait TypeParam<T> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized;
}
// Indirectly capturing a lifetime param through a type param substitution.
impl<'a> TypeParam<&'a ()> for i32 {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
    //~^ WARN impl trait in impl method captures fewer lifetimes than in trait
}
```

Since the opaque in the method (implicitly) captures `use<Self, T>`, and `Self = i32, T = &'a ()` in the impl, we must mention `'a` in our `use<..>` on the impl.

Tracking:
* rust-lang#130044
@fmease fmease added the S-tracking-needs-to-bake Status: The implementation is "complete" but it needs time to bake. label Dec 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC F-precise_capturing_in_traits `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` F-precise_capturing `#![feature(precise_capturing)]` S-tracking-needs-to-bake Status: The implementation is "complete" but it needs time to bake. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants