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) {}
|
```
Suggest associated type bounds on problematic associated equality bounds
Fixes#105056. TL;DR: Suggest `Trait<Ty: Bound>` on `Trait<Ty = Bound>` in Rust >=2021.
~~Blocked on #122055 (stabilization of `associated_type_bounds`), I'd say.~~ (merged)
With associated type bounds enabled, the implied_predicates and super_predicates
queries may differ for traits, since associated type bounds are also
implied but are not counted as super predicates.
Stabilize associated type bounds (RFC 2289)
This PR stabilizes associated type bounds, which were laid out in [RFC 2289]. This gives us a shorthand to express nested type bounds that would otherwise need to be expressed with nested `impl Trait` or broken into several `where` clauses.
### What are we stabilizing?
We're stabilizing the associated item bounds syntax, which allows us to put bounds in associated type position within other bounds, i.e. `T: Trait<Assoc: Bounds...>`. See [RFC 2289] for motivation.
In all position, the associated type bound syntax expands into a set of two (or more) bounds, and never anything else (see "How does this differ[...]" section for more info).
Associated type bounds are stabilized in four positions:
* **`where` clauses (and APIT)** - This is equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses. For example, `where T: Trait<Assoc: Bound>` is equivalent to `where T: Trait, <T as Trait>::Assoc: Bound`.
* **Supertraits** - Similar to above, `trait CopyIterator: Iterator<Item: Copy> {}`. This is almost equivalent to breaking up the bound into two (or more) `where` clauses; however, the bound on the associated item is implied whenever the trait is used. See #112573/#112629.
* **Associated type item bounds** - This allows constraining the *nested* rigid projections that are associated with a trait's associated types. e.g. `trait Trait { type Assoc: Trait2<Assoc2: Copy>; }`.
* **opaque item bounds (RPIT, TAIT)** - This allows constraining associated types that are associated with the opaque without having to *name* the opaque. For example, `impl Iterator<Item: Copy>` defines an iterator whose item is `Copy` without having to actually name that item bound.
The latter three are not expressible in surface Rust (though for associated type item bounds, this will change in #120752, which I don't believe should block this PR), so this does represent a slight expansion of what can be expressed in trait bounds.
### How does this differ from the RFC?
Compared to the RFC, the current implementation *always* desugars associated type bounds to sets of `ty::Clause`s internally. Specifically, it does *not* introduce a position-dependent desugaring as laid out in [RFC 2289], and in particular:
* It does *not* desugar to anonymous associated items in associated type item bounds.
* It does *not* desugar to nested RPITs in RPIT bounds, nor nested TAITs in TAIT bounds.
This position-dependent desugaring laid out in the RFC existed simply to side-step limitations of the trait solver, which have mostly been fixed in #120584. The desugaring laid out in the RFC also added unnecessary complication to the design of the feature, and introduces its own limitations to, for example:
* Conditionally lowering to nested `impl Trait` in certain positions such as RPIT and TAIT means that we inherit the limitations of RPIT/TAIT, namely lack of support for higher-ranked opaque inference. See this code example: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120752#issuecomment-1979412531.
* Introducing anonymous associated types makes traits no longer object safe, since anonymous associated types are not nameable, and all associated types must be named in `dyn` types.
This last point motivates why this PR is *not* stabilizing support for associated type bounds in `dyn` types, e.g, `dyn Assoc<Item: Bound>`. Why? Because `dyn` types need to have *concrete* types for all associated items, this would necessitate a distinct lowering for associated type bounds, which seems both complicated and unnecessary compared to just requiring the user to write `impl Trait` themselves. See #120719.
### Implementation history:
Limited to the significant behavioral changes and fixes and relevant PRs, ping me if I left something out--
* #57428
* #108063
* #110512
* #112629
* #120719
* #120584Closes#52662
[RFC 2289]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2289-associated-type-bounds.html
Merge `collect_mod_item_types` query into `check_well_formed`
follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/121154
this removes more potential parallel-compiler bottlenecks and moves diagnostics for the same items next to each other, instead of grouping diagnostics by analysis kind
Prevent cycle in implied predicates computation
Makes #65913 from hang -> fail. I believe fail is the correct state for this test to remain for the long term.
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix#40120.
When an associated type with GATs isn't specified in a `dyn Trait`, emit
an object safety error instead of only complaining about the missing
associated type, as it will lead the user down a path of three different
errors before letting them know that what they were trying to do is
impossible to begin with.
Fix#103155.
When encountering an associated item with a type param that could be
constrained, do not look at the parent item if the type param comes from
the associated item.
Fix#117209.
