Point at return expression for RPIT-related error
Certainly this needs some diagnostic refining, but I wanted to show that it was possible first and foremost. Not sure if this is the right approach. Open to feedback.
Fixes#80583
lub: don't bail out due to empty binders
allows for the following to compile. The equivalent code using `struct Wrapper<'upper>(fn(&'upper ());` already compiles on stable.
```rust
let _: fn(&'upper ()) = match v {
true => lt_in_fn::<'a>(),
false => lt_in_fn::<'b>(),
};
```
see https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=7034a677190110941223cafac6632f70 for a complete example
r? ```@rust-lang/types```
#91318 introduced a trait for infallible folders distinct from the fallible version. For some reason (completely unfathomable to me now that I look at it with fresh eyes), the infallible trait was a supertrait of the fallible one: that is, all fallible folders were required to also be infallible. Moreover the `Error` associated type was defined on the infallible trait! It's so absurd that it has me questioning whether I was entirely sane.
This trait reverses the hierarchy, so that the fallible trait is a supertrait of the infallible one: all infallible folders are required to also be fallible (which is a trivial blanket implementation). This of course makes much more sense! It also enables the `Error` associated type to sit on the fallible trait, where it sensibly belongs.
There is one downside however: folders expose a `tcx` accessor method. Since the blanket fallible implementation for infallible folders only has access to a generic `F: TypeFolder`, we need that trait to expose such an accessor to which we can delegate. Alternatively it's possible to extract that accessor into a separate `HasTcx` trait (or similar) that would then be a supertrait of both the fallible and infallible folder traits: this would ensure that there's only one unambiguous `tcx` method, at the cost of a little additional boilerplate. If desired, I can submit that as a separate PR.
r? @jackh726
The code now accepts `Binder<OutlivesPredicate>`
instead of just `OutlivesPredicate` and thus exercises
the new, generalized `IfEqBound` codepaths. Note though
that we never *produce* Binder<OutlivesPredicate>, so we
are only testing a subset of those codepaths that excludes
actual higher-ranked outlives bounds.
Make `ExprKind::Closure` a struct variant.
Simple refactor since we both need it to introduce additional fields in `ExprKind::Closure`.
r? ``@Aaron1011``
Rename the `ConstS::val` field as `kind`.
And likewise for the `Const::val` method.
Because its type is called `ConstKind`. Also `val` is a confusing name
because `ConstKind` is an enum with seven variants, one of which is
called `Value`. Also, this gives consistency with `TyS` and `PredicateS`
which have `kind` fields.
The commit also renames a few `Const` variables from `val` to `c`, to
avoid confusion with the `ConstKind::Value` variant.
r? `@BoxyUwU`
Remove RegionckMode in favor of calling new skip_region_resolution
Simple cleanup. We can skip a bunch of stuff for places where NLL does the region checking, so skip earlier.
r? rust-lang/types
And likewise for the `Const::val` method.
Because its type is called `ConstKind`. Also `val` is a confusing name
because `ConstKind` is an enum with seven variants, one of which is
called `Value`. Also, this gives consistency with `TyS` and `PredicateS`
which have `kind` fields.
The commit also renames a few `Const` variables from `val` to `c`, to
avoid confusion with the `ConstKind::Value` variant.
Mention `infer::Trace` methods on `infer::At` methods' docs
I missed that you could do `infcx.at(...).trace(...).eq(a, b)` when `a` and `b` dont implement `ToTrace` but does implement `Relate` these docs would have helped see that 😅
This commit makes type folding more like the way chalk does it.
Currently, `TypeFoldable` has `fold_with` and `super_fold_with` methods.
- `fold_with` is the standard entry point, and defaults to calling
`super_fold_with`.
- `super_fold_with` does the actual work of traversing a type.
- For a few types of interest (`Ty`, `Region`, etc.) `fold_with` instead
calls into a `TypeFolder`, which can then call back into
`super_fold_with`.
With the new approach, `TypeFoldable` has `fold_with` and
`TypeSuperFoldable` has `super_fold_with`.
- `fold_with` is still the standard entry point, *and* it does the
actual work of traversing a type, for all types except types of
interest.
- `super_fold_with` is only implemented for the types of interest.
Benefits of the new model.
- I find it easier to understand. The distinction between types of
interest and other types is clearer, and `super_fold_with` doesn't
exist for most types.
- With the current model is easy to get confused and implement a
`super_fold_with` method that should be left defaulted. (Some of the
precursor commits fixed such cases.)
- With the current model it's easy to call `super_fold_with` within
`TypeFolder` impls where `fold_with` should be called. The new
approach makes this mistake impossible, and this commit fixes a number
of such cases.
- It's potentially faster, because it avoids the `fold_with` ->
`super_fold_with` call in all cases except types of interest. A lot of
the time the compile would inline those away, but not necessarily
always.
