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
Fix projections when parent capture is by-ref but child capture is by-value in the `ByMoveBody` pass
This fixes a somewhat strange bug where we build the incorrect MIR in #129074. This one is weird, but I don't expect it to actually matter in practice since it almost certainly results in a move error in borrowck. However, let's not ICE.
Given the code:
```
#![feature(async_closure)]
// NOT copy.
struct Ty;
fn hello(x: &Ty) {
let c = async || {
*x;
//~^ ERROR cannot move out of `*x` which is behind a shared reference
};
}
fn main() {}
```
The parent coroutine-closure captures `x: &Ty` by-ref, resulting in an upvar of `&&Ty`. The child coroutine captures `x` by-value, resulting in an upvar of `&Ty`. When constructing the by-move body for the coroutine-closure, we weren't applying an additional deref projection to convert the parent capture into the child capture, resulting in an type error in assignment, which is a validation ICE.
As I said above, this only occurs (AFAICT) in code that eventually results in an error, because it is only triggered by HIR that attempts to move a non-copy value out of a ref. This doesn't occur if `Ty` is `Copy`, since we'd instead capture `x` by-ref in the child coroutine.
Fixes#129074
Fix `ElaborateBoxDerefs` on debug varinfo
Slightly simplifies the `ElaborateBoxDerefs` pass to fix cases where it was applying the wrong projections to debug var infos containing places that deref boxes.
From what I can tell[^1], we don't actually have any tests (or code anywhere, really) that exercise `debug x => *(...: Box<T>)`, and it's very difficult to trigger this in surface Rust, so I wrote a custom MIR test.
What happens is that the pass was turning `*(SOME_PLACE: Box<T>)` into `*(*((((SOME_PLACE).0: Unique<T>).0: NonNull<T>).0: *const T))` in debug var infos. In particular, notice the *double deref*, which was wrong.
This is the root cause of #128554, so this PR fixes#128554 as well. The reason that async closures was affected is because of the way that we compute the [`ByMove` body](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/compiler/rustc_mir_transform/src/coroutine/by_move_body.rs), which resulted in `*(...: Box<T>)` in debug var info. But this really has nothing to do with async closures.
[^1]: Validated by literally replacing the `if elem == PlaceElem::Deref && base_ty.is_box() { ... }` innards with a `panic!()`, which compiled all of stage2 without panicking.
Accurately refer to assoc fn without receiver as assoc fn instead of methods.
Add `AssocItem::descr` method to centralize where we call methods and associated functions.
Don't implement `AsyncFn` for `FnDef`/`FnPtr` that wouldnt implement `Fn`
Due to unsafety, ABI, or the presence of target features, some `FnDef`/`FnPtr` types don't implement `Fn*`. Do the same for `AsyncFn*`.
Noticed this due to #128764, but this isn't really related to that ICE, which is fixed in #128792.
Stabilize `const_waker`
Closes: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012.
For `local_waker` and `context_ext` related things, I just ~~moved them to dedicated feature gates and reused their own tracking issue (maybe it's better to open a new one later, but at least they should not be tracked under https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102012 from the beginning IMO.)~~ reused their own feature gates as suggested by ``@tgross35.``
``@rustbot`` label: +T-libs-api
r? libs-api
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 `?`.
Fix associated item removal suggestion
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal (treating it as a `help`). We now properly suggest to remove the code that needs to be removed.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
Go over all structured parser suggestions and make them verbose style.
When suggesting to add or remove delimiters, turn them into multiple suggestion parts.
Implement simple, unstable lint to suggest turning closure-of-async-block into async-closure
We want to eventually suggest people to turn `|| async {}` to `async || {}`. This begins doing that. It's a pretty rudimentary lint, but I wanted to get something down so I wouldn't lose the code.
Tracking:
* #62290
Tweak some structured suggestions to be more verbose and accurate
Addressing some issues I found while working on #127282.
```
error: this URL is not a hyperlink
--> $DIR/auxiliary/include-str-bare-urls.md:1:11
|
LL | HEADS UP! https://example.com MUST SHOW UP IN THE STDERR FILE!
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: bare URLs are not automatically turned into clickable links
note: the lint level is defined here
--> $DIR/include-str-bare-urls.rs:14:9
|
LL | #![deny(rustdoc::bare_urls)]
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
help: use an automatic link instead
|
LL | HEADS UP! <https://example.com> MUST SHOW UP IN THE STDERR FILE!
| + +
```
```
error[E0384]: cannot assign twice to immutable variable `v`
--> $DIR/assign-imm-local-twice.rs:7:5
|
LL | v = 1;
| ----- first assignment to `v`
LL | println!("v={}", v);
LL | v = 2;
| ^^^^^ cannot assign twice to immutable variable
|
help: consider making this binding mutable
|
LL | let mut v: isize;
| +++
```
```
error[E0393]: the type parameter `Rhs` must be explicitly specified
--> $DIR/issue-22560.rs:9:23
|
LL | trait Sub<Rhs=Self> {
| ------------------- type parameter `Rhs` must be specified for this
...
LL | type Test = dyn Add + Sub;
| ^^^
|
= note: because of the default `Self` reference, type parameters must be specified on object types
help: set the type parameter to the desired type
|
LL | type Test = dyn Add + Sub<Rhs>;
| +++++
```
```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow `v` as mutable, as it is not declared as mutable
--> $DIR/issue-33819.rs:4:34
|
LL | Some(ref v) => { let a = &mut v; },
| ^^^^^^ cannot borrow as mutable
|
help: try removing `&mut` here
|
LL - Some(ref v) => { let a = &mut v; },
LL + Some(ref v) => { let a = v; },
|
```
```
help: remove the invocation before committing it to a version control system
|
LL - dbg!();
|
```
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/issue-39974.rs:1:21
|
LL | const LENGTH: f64 = 2;
| ^ expected `f64`, found integer
|
help: use a float literal
|
LL | const LENGTH: f64 = 2.0;
| ++
```
```
error[E0529]: expected an array or slice, found `Vec<i32>`
--> $DIR/match-ergonomics.rs:8:9
|
LL | [&v] => {},
| ^^^^ pattern cannot match with input type `Vec<i32>`
|
help: consider slicing here
|
LL | match x[..] {
| ++++
```
```
error[E0609]: no field `0` on type `[u32; 1]`
--> $DIR/parenthesized-deref-suggestion.rs:10:21
|
LL | (x as [u32; 1]).0;
| ^ unknown field
|
help: instead of using tuple indexing, use array indexing
|
LL | (x as [u32; 1])[0];
| ~ +
```
`E0229`: Suggest Moving Type Constraints to Type Parameter Declaration
Fixes#113073
This PR suggests `impl<T: Bound> Trait<T> for Foo` when finding `impl Trait<T: Bound> for Foo`. Tangentially, it also improves a handful of other error messages.
It accomplishes this in two steps:
1. Check if constrained arguments and parameter names appear in the same order and delay emitting "incorrect number of generic arguments" error because it can be confusing for the programmer to see `0 generic arguments provided` when there are `n` constrained generic arguments.
2. Inside `E0229`, suggest declaring the type parameter right after the `impl` keyword by finding the relevant impl block's span for type parameter declaration. This also handles lifetime declarations correctly.
Also, the multi part suggestion doesn't use the fluent error mechanism because translating all the errors to fluent style feels outside the scope of this PR. I will handle it in a separate PR if this gets approved.
Account for existing bindings when suggesting `pin!()`
When we encounter a situation where we'd suggest `pin!()`, we now account for that expression existing as part of an assignment and provide an appropriate suggestion:
```
error[E0599]: no method named `poll` found for type parameter `F` in the current scope
--> $DIR/pin-needed-to-poll-3.rs:19:28
|
LL | impl<F> Future for FutureWrapper<F>
| - method `poll` not found for this type parameter
...
LL | let res = self.fut.poll(cx);
| ^^^^ method not found in `F`
|
help: consider pinning the expression
|
LL ~ let mut pinned = std::pin::pin!(self.fut);
LL ~ let res = pinned.as_mut().poll(cx);
|
```
Fix#125661.
