Stabilize `impl_trait_projections`
Closes#115659
## TL;DR:
This allows us to mention `Self` and `T::Assoc` in async fn and return-position `impl Trait`, as you would expect you'd be able to.
Some examples:
```rust
#![feature(return_position_impl_trait_in_trait, async_fn_in_trait)]
// (just needed for final tests below)
// ---------------------------------------- //
struct Wrapper<'a, T>(&'a T);
impl Wrapper<'_, ()> {
async fn async_fn() -> Self {
//^ Previously rejected because it returns `-> Self`, not `-> Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
Wrapper(&())
}
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected because it mentions `Self`, not `Wrapper<'_, ()>`.
std::iter::once(Wrapper(&()))
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait Trait<'a> {
type Assoc;
fn new() -> Self::Assoc;
}
impl Trait<'_> for () {
type Assoc = ();
fn new() {}
}
impl<'a, T: Trait<'a>> Wrapper<'a, T> {
async fn mk_assoc() -> T::Assoc {
//^ Previously rejected because `T::Assoc` doesn't mention `'a` in the HIR,
// but ends up resolving to `<T as Trait<'a>>::Assoc`, which does rely on `'a`.
// That's the important part -- the elided trait.
T::new()
}
fn a_few_assocs() -> impl Iterator<Item = T::Assoc> {
//^ Previously rejected for the same reason
[T::new(), T::new(), T::new()].into_iter()
}
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
trait InTrait {
async fn async_fn() -> Self;
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self>;
}
impl InTrait for &() {
async fn async_fn() -> Self { &() }
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
fn impl_trait() -> impl Iterator<Item = Self> {
//^ Previously rejected just like inherent impls
[&()].into_iter()
}
}
```
## Technical:
Lifetimes in return-position `impl Trait` (and `async fn`) are duplicated as early-bound generics local to the opaque in order to make sure we are able to substitute any late-bound lifetimes from the function in the opaque's hidden type. (The [dev guide](https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/return-position-impl-trait-in-trait.html#aside-opaque-lifetime-duplication) has a small section about why this is necessary -- this was written for RPITITs, but it applies to all RPITs)
Prior to #103491, all of the early-bound lifetimes not local to the opaque were replaced with `'static` to avoid issues where relating opaques caused their *non-captured* lifetimes to be related. This `'static` replacement led to strange and possibly unsound behaviors (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/61949#issuecomment-508836314) (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53613) when referencing the `Self` type alias in an impl or indirectly referencing a lifetime parameter via a projection type (via a `T::Assoc` projection without an explicit trait), since lifetime resolution is performed on the HIR, when neither `T::Assoc`-style projections or `Self` in impls are expanded.
Therefore an error was implemented in #62849 to deny this subtle behavior as a known limitation of the compiler. It was attempted by `@cjgillot` to fix this in #91403, which was subsequently unlanded. Then it was re-attempted to much success (🎉) in #103491, which is where we currently are in the compiler.
The PR above (#103491) fixed this issue technically by *not* replacing the opaque's parent lifetimes with `'static`, but instead using variance to properly track which lifetimes are captured and are not. The PR gated any of the "side-effects" of the PR behind a feature gate (`impl_trait_projections`) presumably to avoid having to involve T-lang or T-types in the PR as well. `@cjgillot` can clarify this if I'm misunderstanding what their intention was with the feature gate.
Since we're not replacing (possibly *invariant*!) lifetimes with `'static` anymore, there are no more soundness concerns here. Therefore, this PR removes the feature gate.
Tests:
* `tests/ui/async-await/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/feature-self-return-type.rs`
* `tests/ui/async-await/issues/issue-78600.rs`
* `tests/ui/impl-trait/capture-lifetime-not-in-hir.rs`
---
r? cjgillot on the impl (not much, just removing the feature gate)
I'm gonna mark this as FCP for T-lang and T-types.
The type inference of argument-position closures and async blocks
regressed in 1.70 as the evaluation order of async blocks changed, as
they are not implicitly wrapped in an identity-function anymore.
Fixes#112225 by making sure the evaluation order stays the same as it
used to.
Consider `tests/ui/const-generics/generic_const_exprs/issue-102768.stderr`,
the error message where it gives additional notes about where the associated
type is defined, and how the dead code lint doesn't have an article,
like in `tests/ui/lint/dead-code/issue-85255.stderr`. They don't have
articles, so it seems unnecessary to have one here.
Considering the following code
```rust
fn foo() -> u8 {
async fn async_fn() -> u8 { 22 }
async_fn()
}
fn main() {}
```
the error generated before this commit from the compiler is
```
➜ rust git:(macros/async_fn_suggestion) ✗ rustc test.rs --edition 2021
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found opaque type
|
= note: expected type `u8`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = u8>`
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
In this case the error is nor perfect, and can confuse the user
that do not know that the opaque type is the future.
So this commit will propose (and conclude the work start in
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/80658)
to change the string `opaque type` to `future` when applicable
and also remove the Expected vs Received note by adding a more
specific one regarding the async function that return a future type.
So the new error emitted by the compiler is
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> test.rs:4:5
|
1 | fn foo() -> u8 {
| -- expected `u8` because of return type
...
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected `u8`, found future
|
note: calling an async function returns a future
--> test.rs:4:5
|
4 | async_fn()
| ^^^^^^^^^^
help: consider `await`ing on the `Future`
|
4 | async_fn().await
| ++++++
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
Remove confusing 'while checking' note from opaque future type mismatches
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the wording of the note. The only value I can see in this note is that it points out where the async's opaque future is coming from, but the way it's doing it is misleading IMO.
For example:
```rust
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> $DIR/dont-suggest-missing-await.rs:7:24
|
LL | async fn make_u32() -> u32 {
| ^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
```
We point at the type `u32` in the HIR, but then say "found opaque type". We also say "while checking"... but we're typechecking a totally different function when we get this type mismatch!
r? ``@estebank`` but feel free to reassign and/or take your time reviewing this. I'd be inclined to also discuss reworking the presentation of this type mismatch to restore some of these labels in a way that makes it more clear what it's trying to point out.
