Cleanup: Move an impl-Trait check from AST validation to AST lowering
Namely the one that rejects `impl Trait` in qself types and non-final path segments.
There's no good reason to perform this during AST validation.
We have better infrastructure in place in the AST lowerer (`ImplTraitContext`).
This shaves off a lot of code.
We now lower `impl Trait` in bad positions to `{type error}` which allows us to
remove a special case from HIR ty lowering.
Coincidentally fixes#126725. Well, it only *masks* it by passing `{type error}` to HIR analysis instead of a "bad" opaque. I was able to find a new reproducer for it. See the issue.
Move polarity into `PolyTraitRef` rather than storing it on the side
Arguably we could move these modifiers into `TraitRef` instead of `PolyTraitRef`, but I see `TraitRef` as simply the *path* part of the trait ref. It doesn't really matter -- refactoring this further is much easier now.
Retire the `unnamed_fields` feature for now
`#![feature(unnamed_fields)]` was implemented in part in #115131 and #115367, however work on that feature has (afaict) stalled and in the mean time there have been some concerns raised (e.g.[^1][^2]) about whether `unnamed_fields` is worthwhile to have in the language, especially in its current desugaring. Because it represents a compiler implementation burden including a new kind of anonymous ADT and additional complication to field selection, and is quite prone to bugs today, I'm choosing to remove the feature.
However, since I'm not one to really write a bunch of words, I'm specifically *not* going to de-RFC this feature. This PR essentially *rolls back* the state of this feature to "RFC accepted but not yet implemented"; however if anyone wants to formally unapprove the RFC from the t-lang side, then please be my guest. I'm just not totally willing to summarize the various language-facing reasons for why this feature is or is not worthwhile, since I'm coming from the compiler side mostly.
Fixes#117942Fixes#121161Fixes#121263Fixes#121299Fixes#121722Fixes#121799Fixes#126969Fixes#131041
Tracking:
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804
[^1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Unnamed.20struct.2Funion.20fields
[^2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49804#issuecomment-1972619108
Properly report error on `const gen fn`
Fixes#130232
Also removes some (what I thought were unused) functions, and fixes a bug in clippy where we considered `gen fn` to be the same as `fn` because it was only built to consider asyncness.
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
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.``````
