Rename `hir::Map::{get_,find_}parent_node` to `hir::Map::{,opt_}parent_id`, and add `hir::Map::{get,find}_parent`
The `hir::Map::get_parent_node` function doesn't return a `Node`, and I think that's quite confusing. Let's rename it to something that sounds more like something that gets the parent hir id => `hir::Map::parent_id`. Same with `find_parent_node` => `opt_parent_id`.
Also, combine `hir.get(hir.parent_id(hir_id))` and similar `hir.find(hir.parent_id(hir_id))` function into new functions that actually retrieve the parent node in one call. This last commit is the only one that might need to be looked at closely.
Suggest `impl Fn*` and `impl Future` in `-> _` return suggestions
Follow-up to #106172, only the last commit is relevant. Can rebase once that PR is landed for easier review.
Suggests `impl Future` and `impl Fn{,Mut,Once}` in `-> _` return suggestions.
r? `@estebank`
Some `compare_method` tweaks
1. Make some of the comparison functions' names more regular
2. Reduce pub scope of some of the things in `compare_method`
~3. Remove some unnecessary opaque type handling code -- `InferCtxt` already is in a mode that doesn't define opaque types~
* moved to a different PR
4. Bubble up `ErrorGuaranteed` for region constraint errors in `compare_method` - Improves a redundant error message in one unit test.
5. Move the `compare_method` module to have a more general name, since it's more like `compare_impl_item` :)
6. Rename `collect_trait_impl_trait_tys`
Rename `assert_uninit_valid` intrinsic
It's not about "uninit" anymore but about "filling with 0x01 bytes" so the name should at least try to reflect that.
This is actually not fully correct though, as it does still panic for all uninit with `-Zstrict-init-checks`. I'm not sure what the best way is to deal with that not causing confusion. I guess we could just remove the flag? I don't think having it makes a lot of sense anymore with the direction that we have chose to go. It could be relevant again if #100423 lands so removing it may be a bit over eager.
r? `@RalfJung`
Improve syntax of `newtype_index`
This makes it more like proper Rust and also makes the implementation a lot simpler.
Mostly just turns weird flags in the body into proper attributes.
It should probably also be converted to an attribute macro instead of function-like, but that can be done in a future PR.
Add `IMPLIED_BOUNDS_ENTAILMENT` lint
Implements a lint (#105572) version of the hard-error introduced in #105483. Context is in that PR.
r? `@lcnr`
cc `@oli-obk` who had asked for this to be a lint first
Not sure if this needs to be an FCP, since it's a lint for now.
Remove the `..` from the body, only a few invocations used it and it's
inconsistent with rust syntax.
Use `;` instead of `,` between consts. As the Rust syntax gods inteded.
always use `anonymize_bound_vars`
Unless this is perf-sensitive, it's probably best to always use one anonymize function that does the right thing for all bound vars.
r? types
Ensure async trait impls are async (or otherwise return an opaque type)
As a workaround for the full `#[refine]` semantics not being implemented
yet, forbit returning a concrete future type like `Box<dyn Future>` or a
manually implemented Future.
`-> impl Future` is still permitted; while that can also cause
accidental refinement, that's behind a different feature gate
(`return_position_impl_trait_in_trait`) and that problem exists
regardless of whether the trait method is async, so will have to be
solved more generally.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/102745
As a workaround for the full `#[refine]` semantics not being implemented
yet, forbit returning a concrete future type like `Box<dyn Future>` or a
manually implemented Future.
`-> impl Future` is still permitted; while that can also cause
accidental refinement, that's behind a different feature gate
(`return_position_impl_trait_in_trait`) and that problem exists
regardless of whether the trait method is async, so will have to be
solved more generally.
Fixes#102745
