Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler
Caught these when cleaning up #129344 and decided to run clippy to find the rest
Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)
This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [#125836](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/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](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/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](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/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:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/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.
- https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/issues/1677
- https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/pull/1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/issues/17598
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/pull/17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/127228
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127632
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide/pull/316
- [x] Update the Reference.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1577
### (Selected) implementation history
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3498
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3617
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/123468
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125836
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126049
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126753Closes#123432.
cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`
`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123432
----
For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)
r? compiler
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
Deny keyword lifetimes pre-expansion
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126452#issuecomment-2179464266
> Secondly, we confirmed that we're OK with moving the validation of keywords in lifetimes to pre-expansion from post-expansion. We similarly consider this a bug fix. While the breakage of the convenience feature of the with_locals crate that relies on this is unfortunate, and we wish we had not overlooked this earlier for that reason, we're fortunate that the breakage is contained to only one crate, and we're going to accept this breakage as the extra complexity we'd need to carry in the compiler to work around this isn't deemed worth it.
T-lang considers it to be a bugfix to deny `'keyword` lifetimes in the parser, rather than during AST validation that only happens post-expansion. This has one breakage: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/126452#issuecomment-2171654756
This probably should get lang FCP'd just for consistency.
Improve unsafe extern blocks diagnostics
Closes#126327
For this code:
```rust
extern {
pub fn foo();
pub safe fn bar();
}
```
We get ...
```
error: items in unadorned `extern` blocks cannot have safety qualifiers
--> test.rs:3:5
|
3 | pub safe fn bar();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: add unsafe to this `extern` block
|
1 | unsafe extern {
| ++++++
error[E0658]: `unsafe extern {}` blocks and `safe` keyword are experimental
--> test.rs:3:9
|
3 | pub safe fn bar();
| ^^^^
|
= note: see issue #123743 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123743> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)]` to the crate attributes to enable
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0658`.
```
And then making the extern block unsafe, we get ...
```
error: extern block cannot be declared unsafe
--> test.rs:1:1
|
1 | unsafe extern {
| ^^^^^^
|
= note: see issue #123743 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123743> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)]` to the crate attributes to enable
error: items in unadorned `extern` blocks cannot have safety qualifiers
--> test.rs:3:5
|
3 | pub safe fn bar();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
error[E0658]: `unsafe extern {}` blocks and `safe` keyword are experimental
--> test.rs:3:9
|
3 | pub safe fn bar();
| ^^^^
|
= note: see issue #123743 <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123743> for more information
= help: add `#![feature(unsafe_extern_blocks)]` to the crate attributes to enable
error: aborting due to 3 previous errors
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0658`.
```
r? ``@compiler-errors``
Update AST validation module docs
Drive-by doc update for AST validation pass:
- Syntax extensions are replaced by proc macros.
- Add rationale for why AST validation pass need to be run
post-expansion and why the pass is needed in the first place.
This was discussed during this week's [rustc-dev-guide reading club](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/196385-t-compiler.2Fwg-rustc-dev-guide), and the rationale was explained by cc ``````@bjorn3.``````
`StaticForeignItem` and `StaticItem` are the same
The struct `StaticItem` and `StaticForeignItem` are the same, so remove `StaticForeignItem`. Having them be separate is unique to `static` items -- unlike `ForeignItemKind::{Fn,TyAlias}`, which use the normal AST item.
r? ``@spastorino`` or ``@oli-obk``
We already do this for a number of crates, e.g. `rustc_middle`,
`rustc_span`, `rustc_metadata`, `rustc_span`, `rustc_errors`.
For the ones we don't, in many cases the attributes are a mess.
- There is no consistency about order of attribute kinds (e.g.
`allow`/`deny`/`feature`).
- Within attribute kind groups (e.g. the `feature` attributes),
sometimes the order is alphabetical, and sometimes there is no
particular order.
- Sometimes the attributes of a particular kind aren't even grouped
all together, e.g. there might be a `feature`, then an `allow`, then
another `feature`.
This commit extends the existing sorting to all compiler crates,
increasing consistency. If any new attribute line is added there is now
only one place it can go -- no need for arbitrary decisions.
Exceptions:
- `rustc_log`, `rustc_next_trait_solver` and `rustc_type_ir_macros`,
because they have no crate attributes.
- `rustc_codegen_gcc`, because it's quasi-external to rustc (e.g. it's
ignored in `rustfmt.toml`).
Rename HIR `TypeBinding` to `AssocItemConstraint` and related cleanup
Rename `hir::TypeBinding` and `ast::AssocConstraint` to `AssocItemConstraint` and update all items and locals using the old terminology.
Motivation: The terminology *type binding* is extremely outdated. "Type bindings" not only include constraints on associated *types* but also on associated *constants* (feature `associated_const_equality`) and on RPITITs of associated *functions* (feature `return_type_notation`). Hence the word *item* in the new name. Furthermore, the word *binding* commonly refers to a mapping from a binder/identifier to a "value" for some definition of "value". Its use in "type binding" made sense when equality constraints (e.g., `AssocTy = Ty`) were the only kind of associated item constraint. Nowadays however, we also have *associated type bounds* (e.g., `AssocTy: Bound`) for which the term *binding* doesn't make sense.
---
Old terminology (HIR, rustdoc):
```
`TypeBinding`: (associated) type binding
├── `Constraint`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: (associated) equality constraint (?)
├── `Ty`: (associated) type binding
└── `Const`: associated const equality (constraint)
```
Old terminology (AST, abbrev.):
```
`AssocConstraint`
├── `Bound`
└── `Equality`
├── `Ty`
└── `Const`
```
New terminology (AST, HIR, rustdoc):
```
`AssocItemConstraint`: associated item constraint
├── `Bound`: associated type bound
└── `Equality`: associated item equality constraint OR associated item binding (for short)
├── `Ty`: associated type equality constraint OR associated type binding (for short)
└── `Const`: associated const equality constraint OR associated const binding (for short)
```
r? compiler-errors
