Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add cross-crate precise capturing support to rustdoc #127658

Merged

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

@rustbot rustbot added A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 12, 2024
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jul 12, 2024

rustdoc-json-types is a public (although nightly-only) API. If possible, consider changing src/librustdoc/json/conversions.rs; otherwise, make sure you bump the FORMAT_VERSION constant.

cc @CraftSpider, @aDotInTheVoid, @Enselic, @obi1kenobi

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

Comment on lines +2263 to +2264
impl_trait_def_id: DefId,
args: ty::GenericArgsRef<'tcx>,
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ended up inlining the explicit_item_bounds call into here, since I needed access to the def-id to call a query on it.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

I guess this is worth perf since we add a new query, though we're not encoding it for anything except for RPITs with use<>.

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 12, 2024
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

Sorry for the double-ping to the rustdoc-json ppl, this PR only is the last commit.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
…stdoc-cross, r=<try>

Add cross-crate precise capturing support to rustdoc

Follow-up to rust-lang#127632. Fixes rust-lang#127228.

r? `@fmease`

Tracking:
* rust-lang#123432
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 12, 2024

⌛ Trying commit a792b45 with merge b7afd35...

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 12, 2024
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@compiler-errors compiler-errors force-pushed the precise-capturing-rustdoc-cross branch from a792b45 to f29c637 Compare July 12, 2024 17:49
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors try @rust-timer queue

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 12, 2024

⌛ Trying commit f29c637 with merge 34769e6...

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 12, 2024
…stdoc-cross, r=<try>

Add cross-crate precise capturing support to rustdoc

Follow-up to rust-lang#127632. Fixes rust-lang#127228.

r? `@fmease`

Tracking:
* rust-lang#123432
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 12, 2024

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: 34769e6 (34769e627bf11289be1b449511d023421cc1d077)

@rust-timer

This comment has been minimized.

@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (34769e6): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.5% [-2.5%, -2.5%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) -0.6% [-0.6%, -0.6%] 1

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

Results (secondary 2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
2.3% [2.3%, 2.3%] 1
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Bootstrap: 704.911s -> 705.679s (0.11%)
Artifact size: 328.85 MiB -> 328.75 MiB (-0.03%)

@rustbot rustbot removed the S-waiting-on-perf Status: Waiting on a perf run to be completed. label Jul 12, 2024
@compiler-errors compiler-errors force-pushed the precise-capturing-rustdoc-cross branch from f29c637 to 040e4f0 Compare July 13, 2024 01:21
@compiler-errors compiler-errors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jul 13, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 15, 2024

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #127718) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Copy link
Member

@fmease fmease left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

looks good, thanks!
r=me with nits addressed

tests/rustdoc/impl-trait-precise-capturing.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs Show resolved Hide resolved
compiler/rustc_middle/src/query/mod.rs Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@fmease fmease added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 17, 2024
@compiler-errors compiler-errors force-pushed the precise-capturing-rustdoc-cross branch from 524cab1 to da2054f Compare July 17, 2024 15:06
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r=fmease

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 17, 2024

📌 Commit da2054f has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Jul 17, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 20, 2024

⌛ Testing commit da2054f with merge 73a2281...

@aDotInTheVoid aDotInTheVoid added F-precise_capturing `#![feature(precise_capturing)]` and removed A-rustdoc-json Area: Rustdoc JSON backend labels Jul 20, 2024
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 20, 2024

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: fmease
Pushing 73a2281 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Jul 20, 2024
@bors bors merged commit 73a2281 into rust-lang:master Jul 20, 2024
7 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.81.0 milestone Jul 20, 2024
@rust-timer
Copy link
Collaborator

Finished benchmarking commit (73a2281): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-0.4% [-0.4%, -0.4%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results (primary -2.1%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
-2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) -2.1% [-2.1%, -2.1%] 1

Cycles

Results (primary 1.9%, secondary -2.3%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
1.9% [1.9%, 1.9%] 1
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
-2.3% [-2.3%, -2.3%] 1
All ❌✅ (primary) 1.9% [1.9%, 1.9%] 1

Binary size

Results (secondary 0.0%)

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

mean range count
Regressions ❌
(primary)
- - 0
Regressions ❌
(secondary)
0.0% [0.0%, 0.0%] 2
Improvements ✅
(primary)
- - 0
Improvements ✅
(secondary)
- - 0
All ❌✅ (primary) - - 0

Bootstrap: 769.548s -> 771.898s (0.31%)
Artifact size: 328.86 MiB -> 328.86 MiB (0.00%)

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
…=spastorino

Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang#127228
  - rust-lang#127632
  - rust-lang#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang#123468
* rust-lang#125836
* rust-lang#126049
* rust-lang#126753

Closes rust-lang#123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Aug 20, 2024
…=spastorino

Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [rust-lang#125836](rust-lang#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang#127228
  - rust-lang#127632
  - rust-lang#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang#123468
* rust-lang#125836
* rust-lang#126049
* rust-lang#126753

Closes rust-lang#123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
github-actions bot pushed a commit to rust-lang/miri that referenced this pull request Aug 26, 2024
Stabilize opaque type precise capturing (RFC 3617)

This PR partially stabilizes opaque type *precise capturing*, which was specified in [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rfcs#3617), and whose syntax was amended by FCP in [#125836](rust-lang/rust#125836).

This feature, as stabilized here, gives us a way to explicitly specify the generic lifetime parameters that an RPIT-like opaque type captures.  This solves the problem of overcapturing, for lifetime parameters in these opaque types, and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 ([RFC 3498](rust-lang/rfcs#3498)) to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.

### What are we stabilizing?

This PR stabilizes the use of a `use<'a, T>` bound in return-position impl Trait opaque types.  Such a bound fully specifies the set of generic parameters captured by the RPIT opaque type, entirely overriding the implicit default behavior.  E.g.:

```rust
fn does_not_capture<'a, 'b>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
//                               ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
//                This RPIT opaque type does not capture `'b`.
```

The way we would suggest thinking of `impl Trait` types *without* an explicit `use<..>` bound is that the `use<..>` bound has been *elided*, and that the bound is filled in automatically by the compiler according to the edition-specific capture rules.

All non-`'static` lifetime parameters, named (i.e. non-APIT) type parameters, and const parameters in scope are valid to name, including an elided lifetime if such a lifetime would also be valid in an outlives bound, e.g.:

```rust
fn elided(x: &u8) -> impl Sized + use<'_> { x }
```

Lifetimes must be listed before type and const parameters, but otherwise the ordering is not relevant to the `use<..>` bound.  Captured parameters may not be duplicated.  For now, only one `use<..>` bound may appear in a bounds list.  It may appear anywhere within the bounds list.

### How does this differ from the RFC?

This stabilization differs from the RFC in one respect: the RFC originally specified `use<'a, T>` as syntactically part of the RPIT type itself, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl use<'a> Sized {}
```

However, settling on the final syntax was left as an open question.  T-lang later decided via FCP in [#125836](rust-lang/rust#125836) to treat `use<..>` as a syntactic bound instead, e.g.:

```rust
fn capture<'a>() -> impl Sized + use<'a> {}
```

### What aren't we stabilizing?

The key goal of this PR is to stabilize the parts of *precise capturing* that are needed to enable the migration to Rust 2024.

There are some capabilities of *precise capturing* that the RFC specifies but that we're not stabilizing here, as these require further work on the type system.  We hope to lift these limitations later.

The limitations that are part of this PR were specified in the [RFC's stabilization strategy](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3617-precise-capturing.html#stabilization-strategy).

#### Not capturing type or const parameters

The RFC addresses the overcapturing of type and const parameters; that is, it allows for them to not be captured in opaque types.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since all in scope generic type and const parameters are implicitly captured in all editions, this is not needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

For now, when using `use<..>`, all in scope type and const parameters must be nameable (i.e., APIT cannot be used) and included as arguments.  For example, this is an error because `T` is in scope and not included as an argument:

```rust
fn test<T>() -> impl Sized + use<> {}
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` must mention all type parameters in scope in `use<...>`
```

This is due to certain current limitations in the type system related to how generic parameters are represented as captured (i.e. bivariance) and how inference operates.

We hope to relax this in the future, and this stabilization is forward compatible with doing so.

#### Precise capturing for return-position impl Trait **in trait** (RPITIT)

The RFC specifies precise capturing for RPITIT.  We're not stabilizing that in this PR.  Since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, this isn't needed for the migration to Rust 2024.

The effect of this is that the anonymous associated types created by RPITITs must continue to capture all of the lifetime parameters in scope, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo<'a> {
    fn test() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
    //~^ ERROR `use<...>` precise capturing syntax is currently not allowed in return-position `impl Trait` in traits
}
```

To allow this involves a meaningful amount of type system work related to adding variance to GATs or reworking how generics are represented in RPITITs.  We plan to do this work separately from the stabilization.  See:

- rust-lang/rust#124029

Supporting precise capturing for RPITIT will also require us to implement a new algorithm for detecting refining capture behavior.  This may involve looking through type parameters to detect cases where the impl Trait type in an implementation captures fewer lifetimes than the corresponding RPITIT in the trait definition, e.g.:

```rust
trait Foo {
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<Self>;
}

impl<'a> Foo for &'a () {
    // This is "refining" due to not capturing `'a` which
    // is implied by the trait's `use<Self>`.
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<>;

    // This is not "refining".
    fn rpit() -> impl Sized + use<'a>;
}
```

This stabilization is forward compatible with adding support for this later.

### The technical details

This bound is purely syntactical and does not lower to a [`Clause`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.79.0/nightly-rustc/rustc_middle/ty/type.ClauseKind.html) in the type system.  For the purposes of the type system (and for the types team's curiosity regarding this stabilization), we have no current need to represent this as a `ClauseKind`.

Since opaques already capture a variable set of lifetimes depending on edition and their syntactical position (e.g. RPIT vs RPITIT), a `use<..>` bound is just a way to explicitly rather than implicitly specify that set of lifetimes, and this only affects opaque type lowering from AST to HIR.

### FCP plan

While there's much discussion of the type system here, the feature in this PR is implemented internally as a transformation that happens before lowering to the type system layer.  We already support impl Trait types partially capturing the in scope lifetimes; we just currently only expose that implicitly.

So, in my (errs's) view as a types team member, there's nothing for types to weigh in on here with respect to the implementation being stabilized, and I'd suggest a lang-only proposed FCP (though we'll of course CC the team below).

### Authorship and acknowledgments

This stabilization report was coauthored by compiler-errors and TC.

TC would like to acknowledge the outstanding and speedy work that compiler-errors has done to make this feature happen.

compiler-errors thanks TC for authoring the RFC, for all of his involvement in this feature's development, and pushing the Rust 2024 edition forward.

### Open items

We're doing some things in parallel here.  In signaling the intention to stabilize, we want to uncover any latent issues so we can be sure they get addressed.  We want to give the maximum time for discussion here to happen by starting it while other remaining miscellaneous work proceeds.  That work includes:

- [x] Look into `syn` support.
  - dtolnay/syn#1677
  - dtolnay/syn#1707
- [x] Look into `rustfmt` support.
  - rust-lang/rust#126754
- [x] Look into `rust-analyzer` support.
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17598
  - rust-lang/rust-analyzer#17676
- [x] Look into `rustdoc` support.
  - rust-lang/rust#127228
  - rust-lang/rust#127632
  - rust-lang/rust#127658
- [x] Suggest this feature to RfL (a known nightly user).
- [x] Add a chapter to the edition guide.
  - rust-lang/edition-guide#316
- [x] Update the Reference.
  - rust-lang/reference#1577

### (Selected) implementation history

* rust-lang/rfcs#3498
* rust-lang/rfcs#3617
* rust-lang/rust#123468
* rust-lang/rust#125836
* rust-lang/rust#126049
* rust-lang/rust#126753

Closes #123432.

cc `@rust-lang/lang` `@rust-lang/types`

`@rustbot` labels +T-lang +I-lang-nominated +A-impl-trait +F-precise_capturing

Tracking:

- rust-lang/rust#123432

----

For the compiler reviewer, I'll leave some inline comments about diagnostics fallout :^)

r? compiler
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
F-precise_capturing `#![feature(precise_capturing)]` merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

rustdoc: support for precise capturing
7 participants