This RFC adds use<..> syntax for specifying which generic parameters should be captured in an opaque RPIT-like impl Trait type, e.g. impl use<'t, T> Trait. This solves the problem of overcapturing and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.
One way to think about use<..> is that, in Rust use brings things into scope, and here we are bringing certain generic parameters into scope for the hidden type.
We had an extended discussion about this feature in the planning meeting on 2024-04-03, and in that meeting, we had unanimous consensus to move forward with this feature subject to settling the syntax questions. The next step was to write an RFC that would make a specific syntax proposal and lay out a justification for it along with an analysis of each of the alternatives. This is that RFC.
In terms of the syntax question, this RFC selects impl use<'t, T> Trait which was the Condorcet (and approval voting) winner of the preferences that people expressed in the design meeting. Everyone was +0.5 or greater on this option. On a personal note, the process of writing the RFC has made it more clear to me that use is probably the correct choice. We're bringing generic parameters into scope for the hidden type, and use brings things into scope. There are other practical benefits to this choice, such as how it allows us to land this feature in earlier editions, that are described in more detail below.
This RFC is over 4500 words (longer than I had hoped). You probably can do a bit of skimming since you're aware of the context here. In addition to the alternatives section where the other syntax choices are analyzed, I'd also highlight for your attention the sections in the reference-level explanation that address refinement and the stabilization strategy.
Niko has proposed FCP merge. The outcome we're looking for from this meeting, given the edition sensitivity, is that boxes are able to be checked and this goes into FCP. The RFC is here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3617
And the FCP here:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3617#issuecomment-2075096073
This RFC adds use<..> syntax for specifying which generic parameters should be captured in an opaque RPIT-like impl Trait type, e.g. impl use<'t, T> Trait. This solves the problem of overcapturing and will allow the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 to be fully stabilized for RPIT in Rust 2024.
RPIT-like opaque impl Trait types in Rust capture certain generic parameters.
Capturing a generic parameter means that parameter can be used in the hidden type later registered for that opaque type. Any generic parameters not captured cannot be used.
However, captured generic parameters that are not used by the hidden type still affect borrow checking. This leads to the phenomenon of overcapturing. Consider:
fn foo<T>(_: T) -> impl Sized {}
// ^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ The returned opaque type captures `T`
// but the hidden type does not.
fn bar(x: ()) -> impl Sized + 'static {
foo(&x)
//~^ ERROR returns a value referencing data owned by the
//~| current function
}
In this example, we would say that foo overcaptures the type parameter T. The hidden type returned by foo does not use T, however it (and any lifetime components it contains) are part of the returned opaque type. This leads to the error we see above.
Overcapturing limits how callers can use returned opaque types in ways that are often surprising and frustrating. There's no good way to work around this in Rust today.
In Rust 2021 and earlier editions, all type parameters in scope are implicitly captured in RPIT-like impl Trait opaque types. In these editions, lifetime parameters are not implicitly captured unless named in the bounds of the opaque. This resulted, among other things, in the use of "the Captures trick". See RFC 3498 for more details about this.
In RFC 3498, we decided to capture all in-scope generic parameters in RPIT-like impl Trait opaque types, across all editions, for new features we were stabilizing such as return position impl Trait in Trait (RPITIT) and associated type position impl Trait (ATPIT), and to capture all in-scope generic parameters for RPIT on bare functions and on inherent functions and methods starting in the Rust 2024 edition. Doing this made the language more predictable and consistent, eliminated weird "tricks", and, by solving key problems, allowed for the stabilization of RPITIT.
However, the expansion of the RPIT rules in Rust 2024 means that some existing uses of RPIT, when migrated to Rust 2024, will now capture lifetime parameters that were not previously captured, and this may result in code failing to compile. For example, consider:
//@ edition: 2021
fn foo<'t>(_: &'t ()) -> impl Sized {}
fn bar(x: ()) -> impl Sized + 'static {
foo(&x)
}
Under the Rust 2021 rules, this code is accepted because 't is not implicitly captured in the returned opaque type. When migrated to Rust 2024, the 't lifetime will be captured, and so this will fail to compile just as with the similar earlier example that had overcaptured a type parameter.
We need some way to migrate this kind of code.
In all editions, RPIT-like impl Trait opaque types may include use<..> in the bound to specify which in-scope generic parameters are captured or that no in-scope generic parameters are captured (with use<>). If use<..> is provided, it entirely overrides the implicit rules for which generic parameters are captured.
One way to think about use<..> is that, in Rust use brings things into scope, and here we are bringing certain generic parameters into scope for the hidden type.
For example, we can solve the overcapturing in the original motivating example by writing:
fn foo<T>(_: T) -> impl use<> Sized {}
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures nothing.
Similarly, we can use this to avoid overcapturing a lifetime parameter so as to migrate code to Rust 2024:;
fn foo<'t>(_: &'t ()) -> impl use<> Sized {}
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures nothing.
We can use this to capture some generic parameters but not others:
fn foo<'t, T, U>(_: &'t (), _: T, y: U) -> impl use<U> Sized { y }
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `U` only.
In addition to type and lifetime parameters, we can use this to capture generic const parameters:
fn foo<'t, const C: u8>(_: &'t ()) -> impl use<C> Sized { C }
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `C` only.
We can capture generic parameters from an outer inherent impl:
struct Ty<'a, 'b>(&'a (), &'b ());
impl<'a, 'b> Ty<'a, 'b> {
fn foo(x: &'a (), _: &'b ()) -> impl use<'a> Sized { x }
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'a` only.
}
We can capture generic parameters from an outer trait impl:
trait Trait<'a, 'b> {
type Foo;
fn foo(_: &'a (), _: &'b ()) -> Self::Foo;
}
impl<'a, 'b> Trait<'a, 'b> for () {
type Foo = impl use<'a> Sized;
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'a` only.
fn foo(x: &'a (), _: &'b ()) -> Self::Foo { x }
}
We can capture generic parameters from the trait definition:
trait Trait<'a, 'b> {
fn foo(_: &'a (), _: &'b ()) -> impl use<'a, Self> Sized;
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'a` and `Self` only.
}
We can capture elided lifetimes:
fn foo(x: &()) -> impl use<'_> Sized { x }
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'_` only.
for<..>The use<..> specifier applies to the entire impl Trait opaque type. In contrast, a for<..> binder applies to an individual bound within an opaque type. Therefore, when both are used within the same type, use<..> always appears first. E.g.:
fn foo<T>(_: T) -> impl use<T> for<'a> FnOnce(&'a ()) { |&()| () }
The syntax for impl Trait is revised and extended as follows:
UseCaptures :
useGenericParamsImplTraitType :
implUseCaptures? TypeParamBoundsImplTraitTypeOneBound :
implUseCaptures? TraitBound
Associated type position impl Trait (ATPIT) can also be used, more verbosely, to control capturing of generic parameters in opaque types. We can use this to describe the semantics of use<..>. If we consider the following code:
struct Ty<'u, U, const CU: u8>(&'u (), U);
impl<'u, U, const CU: u8> Ty<'u, U, CU> {
pub fn f<'t, T, const CT: u8>(
self, x: &'t (), y: T,
) -> impl use<'u, 't, U, T, CU, CT> Sized {
(self, x, y, CU, CT)
}
}
Then, using ATPIT, we could desugar this as follows while preserving equivalent semantics:
struct Ty<'u, U, const CU: u8>(&'u (), U);
impl<'u, U, const CU: u8> Ty<'u, U, CU> {
pub fn f<'t, T, const CT: u8>(
self, x: &'t (), y: T,
) -> <() as _0::H>::Opaque<'u, 't, U, T, CU, CT> {
<() as _0::H>::f(self, x, y)
}
}
mod _0 {
use super::*;
pub trait H {
type Opaque<'u, 't, U, T, const CU: u8, const CT: u8>;
fn f<'u, 't, U, T, const CU: u8, const CT: u8>(
s: Ty<'u, U, CU>, x: &'t (), y: T,
) -> Self::Opaque<'u, 't, U, T, CU, CT>;
}
impl H for () {
type Opaque<'u, 't, U, T, const CU: u8, const CT: u8>
= impl Sized;
#[inline(always)]
fn f<'u, 't, U, T, const CU: u8, const CT: u8>(
s: Ty<'u, U, CU>, x: &'t (), y: T,
) -> Self::Opaque<'u, 't, U, T, CU, CT> {
(s, x, y, CU, CT)
}
}
}
For implementation reasons, Rust does not yet support higher ranked lifetime bounds on nested opaque types (see #104288). However, according to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, a nested impl Trait opaque type must capture all generic parameters in scope, including higher ranked ones. Therefore, in Rust 2024, this code fails to compile:
trait Trait { type Ty; }
impl<F> Trait for F { type Ty = (); }
fn foo() -> impl for<'a> Trait<Ty = impl Sized> {
//~^ ERROR `impl Trait` cannot capture higher-ranked lifetime
//~| from outer `impl Trait`
fn f(_: &()) -> &'static () { &() }
f
}
With use<..>, we can avoid capturing this higher ranked lifetime, allowing compilation:
fn foo() -> impl for<'a> Trait<Ty = impl use<> Sized> {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures nothing.
fn f(_: &()) -> &'static () { &() }
f
}
Once higher ranked lifetime bounds on nested opaque types are supported in Rust (see #104288), we'll be able to use use<..> specifiers to capture lifetime parameters from higher ranked for<..> binders on outer opaque types:
trait Trait<'a> { type Ty; }
impl<'a, F: Fn(&'a ()) -> &'a ()> Trait<'a> for F { type Ty = &'a (); }
fn foo() -> impl for<'a> Trait<'a, Ty = impl use<'a> Sized> {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'a`.
fn f(x: &()) -> &() { x }
f
}
If we write a trait such as:
trait Trait {
type Foo<'a>: Sized where Self: 'a;
fn foo(&self) -> Self::Foo<'_>;
}
…then an impl of this trait can provide a type for the associated type Foo that uses the &'_ self lifetime:
struct A;
impl Trait for A {
type Foo<'a> = &'a Self; // Or, e.g.: `impl use<'a> Sized`
fn foo(&self) -> Self::Foo<'_> { self }
}
However, such an impl may also provide a type that does not use the lifetime:
struct B;
impl Trait for B {
type Foo<'a> = (); // Or, e.g.: `impl use<> Sized`
fn foo(&self) -> Self::Foo<'_> {}
}
If we only know that the value is of some type that implements the trait, then we must assume that the type returned by foo might have used the lifetime:
fn test_trait<T: Trait + 'static>(x: T) -> impl Sized + 'static {
x.foo()
//~^ ERROR cannot return value referencing function parameter `x`
}
However, if we know we have a value of type B, we can rely on the fact that the lifetime was not used:
fn test_b(x: B) -> impl Sized + 'static {
x.foo() //~ OK.
}
We would say that the impl for B is refining in that it offers more to or demands less of callers than the minimum the trait could offer or the maximum it could demand. Associated type definitions are always refining in this way.
RPITIT desugars into associated types similar to those above, but here we've currently decided to lint against this refinement, e.g.:
trait Trait {
fn foo(&self) -> impl Sized;
}
impl Trait for () {
fn foo(&self) -> () {}
//~^ WARN impl trait in impl method signature does not match
//~| trait method signature
//~| NOTE add `#[allow(refining_impl_trait)]` if it is intended
//~| for this to be part of the public API of this crate
//~| NOTE we are soliciting feedback, see issue #121718
//~| <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718>
//~| for more information
}
Similarly, for consistency, we'll lint against RPITIT cases where less is captured by RPIT in the impl as compared with the trait definition when using use<..>. E.g.:
trait Trait {
fn foo(&self) -> impl Sized;
}
impl Trait for () {
fn foo(&self) -> impl use<> Sized {}
//~^ WARN impl trait in impl method signature does not match
//~| trait method signature
//~| NOTE add `#[allow(refining_impl_trait)]` if it is intended
//~| for this to be part of the public API of this crate
//~| NOTE we are soliciting feedback, see issue #121718
//~| <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/121718>
//~| for more information
}
Note that for a generic type parameter to be captured with use<..> it must have a name. Anonymous generic type parameters introduced with argument position impl Trait (APIT) syntax don't have names, and so cannot be captured with use<..>. E.g.:
fn foo(x: impl Sized) -> impl use<> Sized { x }
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures nothing.
The migration lints for Rust 2024 will insert use<..> as needed so as to preserve the set of generic parameters captured by each RPIT opaque type. That is, we will convert, e.g., this:
//@ edition: 2021
fn foo<'t, T>(_: &'t (), x: T) -> impl Sized { x }
…into this:
//@ edition: 2024
fn foo<'t, T>(_: &'t (), x: T) -> impl use<T> Sized { x }
Note that since generic type parameters must have names to be captured with use<..>, some uses of APIT will need to be converted to named generic parameters. E.g., we will convert this:
//@ edition: 2021
fn foo<'t>(_: &'t (), x: impl Sized) -> impl Sized { x }
…into this:
//@ edition: 2024
fn foo<'t, T: Sized>(_: &'t (), x: T) -> impl use<T> Sized { x }
As we're always cognizant of adding noise during migrations, it's worth mentioning that this will also allow noise to be removed. E.g., this code:
#[doc(hidden)]
pub trait Captures<'t> {}
impl<T: ?Sized> Captures<'_> for T {}
pub fn foo<'a, 'b, 'c>(
x: &'a (), y: &'b (), _: &'c (),
) -> impl Sized + Captures<'a> + Captures<'b> {
(x, y)
}
…can be replaced with this:
pub fn foo<'a, 'b, 'c>(
x: &'a (), y: &'b (), _: &'c (),
) -> impl use<'a, 'b> Sized {
(x, y)
}
As an example of what migrating to explicit use<..> captures looks like within rustc itself (without yet migrating to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024 which would simplify many cases further), see this diff.
Due to implementation considerations, it's likely that the initial stabilization of this feature will be partial. We anticipate that partial stabilization will have these restrictions:
use<..>, if provided, must include all in-scope type and const generic parameters.use<..>, if provided, must include all in-scope generic parameters.We anticipate lifting these restrictions over time.
Since all in-scope type and const generic parameters were already captured in Rust 2021 and earlier editions, and since RPITIT already adheres to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, these restrictions do not interfere with the use of this feature to migrate code to Rust 2024.
As we saw in the reference desugaring above, associated type position impl Trait (ATPIT), once stabilized, can be used to effect precise capturing. Originally, we had hoped that this (particularly once expanded to full type alias impl Trait (TAIT)) might be sufficient and that syntax such as that in this RFC might not be necessary.
As it turned out, there are four problems with this:
Taking these in turn:
One, as can be seen in the reference desugaring, using ATPIT/TAIT in this way can be rather indirect, and this was confirmed in our practical experience when migrating code. ATPIT and TAIT are good tools, but they weren't designed to solve this particular problem. This problem calls for a more direct solution.
Two, while ATPIT is nearing stabilization, there are yet some type systems details being resolved. For TAIT, there is much work yet to do. Putting these features in the critical path would add risk to the edition, to the Lifetime Capture Rules 2024, and to these features.
Three, as a practical matter, an explicit impl use<..> Trait syntax lets us write much better automatic migration lints and offers a much more straightforward migration story for our users.
Four, the set of generic parameters that are captured by an opaque type is a fundamental and practical property of that opaque type. In a language like Rust, it feels like there ought to be an explicit syntax for it. We probably want this in any world.
We had hoped that we might be able to achieve something with a similar effect to precise capturing at the cost of an extra generic lifetime parameter in each signature with improvements to the type system. The goal would be to allow, e.g., this code to work rather than error:
fn foo<'o, T>(_: T) -> impl Sized + 'o {}
fn bar(x: ()) -> impl Sized + 'static {
foo(&x)
//~^ ERROR returns a value referencing data owned by the
//~| current function
}
The idea is that, even though the opaque type returned by foo does capture the generic type parameter T, since the opaque type is explicitly bounded by 'o and the signature does not assert T: 'o, we know that the hidden type cannot actually use T.
As it turns out, making full use of this observation is challenging (see #116040 and #116733). While we did make improvements to the type system here, and while more might be possible, this does not solve the problem today in all important cases (including, e.g., avoiding the capture of higher ranked lifetimes in nested opaque types) and will not for the foreseeable future.
Moreover, even with the fullest possible version of these improvements, whether or not a generic parameter is captured by an opaque type would remain observable. Having an explicit syntax to control what is captured is more direct, more expressive, and leads to a better migration story.
See Appendix G in RFC 3498 for more details.
We considered a number of different possible syntaxes before landing on impl use<..> Trait. We'll discuss each considered.
impl use<..> TraitThis is the syntax chosen in this RFC.
Using a separate keyword makes this syntax more scalable in the sense that we can apply use<..> in other places.
Conveniently, the word "use" is quite appropriate here, since we are using the generic parameters in the type of the opaque type and allowing the generic parameters to be used in the hidden type. That is, with use, we are bringing the generic parameters into scope for the hidden type, and use is the keyword in Rust for bringing things into scope.
Picking an existing keyword allows for this syntax, including extensions to other positions, to be allowed in older editions. Because use is a full keyword, we're not limited in where it can be placed.
By not putting the generic parameters on impl<..>, we reduce the risk of confusion that we are somehow introducing generic parameters here rather than using them.
Using angle brackets, rather than parenthesis or square brackets, is consistent with other places in the language where type parameters are applied to a type.
At three letters, the use keyword is short enough that it doesn't feel too noisy or too much like a burden to use this, and it's parsimonious with other short keywords in Rust.
Overall, naming is hard, but on average, people seemed to dislike this choice the least.
impl<..> TraitThe original syntax proposal was impl<..> Trait. This has the benefit of being somewhat more concise than impl use<..> Trait but has the drawback of perhaps suggesting that it's introducing generic parameters as other uses of impl<..> do. Many preferred to use a different keyword for this reason.
Decisive to some was that we may want this syntax to scale to other uses, most particularly to controlling the set of generic parameters and values that are captured by closure-like blocks. As we discuss in the future possibilities, it's easy to see how use<..> can scale to address this in a way that impl<..> Trait cannot.
impl Trait & ..In some conceptions, the difference between impl Trait + 'a + 'b and impl use<'a, 'b> Trait is the difference between capturing the union of those lifetimes and capturing the intersection of them. This inspires syntax proposals such as impl Trait & 't & T or impl Trait & ['t, T] to express this intersection.
One problem with the former of these is that it gives no obvious way to express that the opaque type captures nothing. Another is that it would give AsRef &T a valid but distinct meaning to AsRef<&T> which might be confusing.
For either of these, appearing later in the type would put these after higher ranked for<..> lifetimes may have been introduced. This could be confusing, since use<..> (with any syntax) captures generic parameters for the entire type where for<..> applies individually to each bound.
Overall, nobody seemed to like this syntax.
impl k#captures<..> TraitWe could use a new and very literal keyword such as captures rather than use. There are three main drawbacks to this:
use is probably good enough.Taking these in turn:
One, while captures could be reserved in Rust 2024 and used in any position in that edition, and in Rust 2021 could be used as k#captures in any position, on older editions, it would only be able to be used where it could be made contextual. This could limit how we might be able to scale this syntax to handle other use cases such as controlling the capturing of generic parameters and values in closure-like blocks (as discussed in the future possibilities).
Two, each keyword takes from the space of names that users have available to them, and it increases the number of keywords with which users must be familiar (e.g. so as to not inadvertently trip over when choosing a name). That is, each keyword has a cost. If an existing keyword can reasonably be used in more places, then we get more benefit for that cost. In this case, use is probably a strong enough choice that paying the cost for a new keyword doesn't seem worth it.
Three, captures would be a somewhat long keyword, especially when we consider how we might scale the use of this syntax to other places such as closure-like blocks. We don't want people to feel punished for being explicit about the generics that they capture, and we don't want them to do other worse things (such as overcapturing where they should not) just to avoid visual bloat in their code, so if we can be more concise here, that seems like a win.
impl move<'t, T> TraitWe could use the existing move keyword, however the word "move" is semantically worse. In Rust, we already use generic parameters in types, but we don't move any generic parameters. We move only values, so this could be confusing. The word "use" is better.
impl k#via<'t, T> TraitWe could use a new short keyword such as via. This has the number 1 and 2 drawbacks of k#captures mentioned above. As with move, it also seems a semantically worse word. With use<..>, we can explain that it means the opaque type uses the listed generic parameters. In contrast, it's not clear how we could explain the word "via" in this context.
We could say use('t, T) or use['t, T]. However, in Rust today, generic parameters always fall within angle brackets, even when being applied to a type. Doing something different here could feel inconsistent and doesn't seem warranted.
There will plausibly be cases where we want to capture many generic parameters and not capture only smaller number. It could be convenient if there were a way to express this without listing out all of the in-scope type parameters except the ones not being captured.
The way we would approach this with the use<..> syntax is to add some syntax that means "fill in all in-scope generic parameters", then add syntax to remove certain generic parameters from the list. E.g.:
fn foo<'a, A, B, C, D>(
_: &'a A, b: B, c: C, d: D,
) -> impl use<.., !'a, !A> Sized {}
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `B`, `C`, and `D` but not `'a` or `A`.
Here, the .. means to include all in-scope generic parameters and ! means to exclude a particular generic parameter even if previously included.
We leave this to future work.
Closures and closure-like blocks (e.g. async, gen, async gen, async closures, gen closures, async gen closures, etc.) return opaque types that capture both values and generic parameters from the outer scope.
The capturing of outer generics in closure-like blocks can lead to overcapturing, as in #65442. Consider:
trait Trait {
type Ty;
fn define<T>(_: T) -> Self::Ty;
}
impl Trait for () {
type Ty = impl Fn();
fn define<T>(_: T) -> Self::Ty {
|| ()
//~^ ERROR type parameter `T` is part of concrete type but not
//~| used in parameter list for the `impl Trait` type alias
}
}
Here, the opaque type of the closure is capturing T. We may want a way to specify which outer generic parameters are captured by closure-like blocks. We could apply the use<..> syntax to closure-like blocks to solve this, e.g.:
trait Trait {
type Ty;
fn define<T>(_: T) -> Self::Ty;
}
impl Trait for () {
type Ty = impl Fn();
fn define<T>(_: T) -> Self::Ty {
use<> || ()
// ^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures no generic parameters.
}
}
We leave this to future work, but this demonstrates how the use<..> syntax can scale to solve other problems.
Closure-like blocks capture values either by moving them or by referencing them. How Rust decides whether values should be captured by move or by reference is implicit and can be a bit subtle. E.g., this works:
fn foo<T>(x: T) -> impl FnOnce() -> T {
|| x
}
…but this does not:
fn foo<T: Copy>(x: T) -> impl FnOnce() -> T {
|| x
//~^ ERROR may outlive borrowed value `x`
}
While in simple cases like this we can apply move to the entire closure-like block to get the result that we want, in other cases other techniques are needed.
We might want a syntax for specifying which values are captured by the closure-like block and how each value is captured. We could apply the use syntax to solve this. E.g.:
fn foo<A, B, C, D>(a: A, b: B, mut c: C, _: D) {
let f = use(a, ref b, ref mut c) || {
// ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
// | | ^ Captures `c` by mutable reference.
// | ^ Captures `b` by immutable reference.
// ^ Captures `a` by move.
todo!()
}
todo!()
}
This could be combined with specifying which outer generic parameters to capture, e.g. with use<A, B, C>(a, ref b, ref mut c).
We leave this to future work, but this demonstrates how the use<..> syntax can scale to solve other problems.
scottmcm: The guide mentions capturing a const C: u8. What does it mean to capture that vs not capture that? Can I use the value of the const without capturing the const itself?
For example, does this make sense?
const fn foo<const C: u8>() -> impl use<> Sized { C }
If so, how does it differ from capturing C?
errs: That is okay because the hidden type u8 doesn't actually mention C. Capturing only has to do with what parameters are allowed in the hidden type.
scottmcm: I guess it's because this shouldn't compile?
const fn bar<const N: usize>() -> impl use<> Sized { [0_u8; N] }
errs: Yes, it shouldn't compile.
scottmcm: Thanks!
nikomatsakis: Does the current implementation support capturing a subset of the type parameters? That has not historically been possible. (If not, or perhaps even if it does, do we expect to stabilize in phases?)
TC: It does not. The section on the stabilization strategy touches on this.
errs: Yeah, we will probably not support not-capturing of ty/const params for the time being. This shouldn't affect the ability to use this feature to avoid fallout from the 2024 lifetime rules.
nikomatsakis: OK, I found the section on this after posing the question.
Josh: Could we please get an explicit indication in the RFC that this syntax allows a trailing comma?
errs: Current impl allows a comma. Should be able to mention it in the guide-level explanation.
Josh: +1, a sentence would suffice.
TC: The reference-level section of the RFC amends the syntax in the Reference using the existing GenericParams production that does allow for a trailing comma. So normatively, the RFC does specify this. We'll add something to the guide-level section to let people know about this also.
Josh: With my style team hat on, could we get a PR to the style guide with a proposal for how to format this?
fn func<...>() -> impl use<Very, Long, Parameters> Trait + Trait2 + Trait3 {
...
}
What should we prioritize line-breaking? Proposal: first break the return type onto its own line (together with the ) -> ), then if it's still too long, break after < and before > and indent the lines between them.
TC: Yes, CE or I will have a look at this along with other documentation items ahead of stabilization.
errs: Generally I think this should format like (), but yeah, we could worry about that soon.
Josh: Are there any circumstances, here or in the foreseeable future, in which the parameters within the use<> would be more than just a single token each?
errs: No, I don't expect so. The only interesting case is if we (in the future) supported use<.., !T> in which case we have two tokens for ! + T, but we can keep those glued.
Josh: Then in that case, the style proposal probably shouldn't propose breaking the parameters onto one line each, that'd be overkill. (Also, I really hope people don't have so many parameters in the use that they don't fit on one line…)
errs: +1, though I think in the worst case for a lot of really long params we would need to break them onto a line each, but only after breaking after ->.
fn func<...>(long: Params)
-> impl use<
Very, Long, Parameters,
> Trait + Trait2 + Trait3 {
...
}
errs: We could do that^; we could also discuss this in T-style meeting rather than here (lol) with P-high prio or whatever.
Josh: Yeah, if you're already planning to submit a style proposal then I don't see any need to cover this in this meeting.
errs: +1.
nikomatsakis: As a nit…
#[doc(hidden)]
pub trait Captures<'t> {}
impl<T: ?Sized> Captures<'_> for T {}
pub fn foo<'a, 'b, 'c>(
x: &'a (), y: &'b (), _: &'c (),
) -> impl Sized + Captures<'a> + Captures<'b> {
(x, y)
}
…can (eventually) be replaced with:
pub fn foo<'a, 'b, 'c>(
x: &'a (), y: &'b (), _: &'c (),
) -> impl Sized {
(x, y)
}
…oh, I guess not because of 'c, though I suspect in practice…
errs: There are subtle differences between capturing an arg and capturing some other arg that outlives the uncaptured arg.
errs: In general though, I plan on implementing a lint that detects the + '_ and + Captures<'_> syntaxes and suggests using use<'_>. I do think it cleans up a lot of cruft in the compiler – see this.
NM: Yeah, disregard this comment by and large :)
impl Trait to named param [Resolved]Josh:
Note that since generic type parameters must have names to be captured with
use<..>, some uses of APIT will need to be converted to named generic parameters.
This migration would potentially introduce an additional API guarantee, right?
errs: The migration lint implemented today doesn't suggest a machine-applicable fix for the case where there's an APIT in scope, so it won't be a silent API hazard.
Josh: Got it. So, people would have to explicitly copy it and apply it, and we could include a guiding message reminding them that it might be an API guarantee (if it's a pub interface)?
errs: Yeah, they would need to do it themselves. I could add a note for saying "you may be committing to people being able to turbofish this arg now."
Josh: Would it be straightforward to only emit that guidance for pub?
errs: Yes (or even pub-reachable.)
Josh: +1; we don't need to cover this in the meeting then.
tmandry: I'd like clarification on this text:
Once higher ranked lifetime bounds on nested opaque types are supported in Rust (see #104288), we'll be able to use
use<..>specifiers to capture lifetime parameters from higher rankedfor<..>binders on outer opaque types:
trait Trait<'a> { type Ty; }
impl<'a, F: Fn(&'a ()) -> &'a ()> Trait<'a> for F { type Ty = &'a (); }
fn foo() -> impl for<'a> Trait<'a, Ty = impl use<'a> Sized> {
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures `'a`.
fn f(x: &()) -> &() { x }
f
}
Since 'a is already in scope, it would be captured by default, correct?
errs: This is redundant, yeah. Just showing that it can be done.
TC: +1.
tmandry: Sounds good.
errs: A "better" example might include a generic in scope that we don't capture, but I don't know. It doesn't seem too necessary.
use before impltmandry: I want to argue that use<> impl Trait is a more natural order for a few reasons:
for<> is informative. for<> applies to a particular bound in the set of bounds, while use<> applies to the entire impl Trait opaque type.use in front of the || (for good reason, in my opinion):impl Trait for () {
type Ty = impl Fn();
fn define<T>(_: T) -> Self::Ty {
use<> || ()
// ^^^^^^^^^^^
// ^ Captures no generic parameters.
}
}
errs: This would affect the stable set of tokens that we allow to start the $:ty macro fragments, for the record.
errs: In a perfect world, I agree this might be better. It would create a lot of macro hassles though.
errs: I don't feel the subjective here outweights the practical in this case.
eholk: The mechanics of doing this probably aren't hard, and we have the policy. But I see what you're saying about the cost and tradeoff here. If we don't have to do this, then that's great.
errs: My feeling is that if we were going to put use first then we should just put the generics on impl directly.
NM: Putting the generics on impl has some downsides that are discussed in the RFC. I could see a future where we later drop use and put it on the impl directly, but that's not certain.
NM: I agree with tmandry that there's some appeal to use coming first.
CE: The use is parameterizing the impl Trait, so even conceptually, it feels fine after the impl to me.
tmandry: We're already doing some macro fragment specifier migrations in Rust 2024. So it seems now is the best time if we want to do it.
CE: Each of these migrations do have a cost, particularly between crates.
scottmcm: We're doing expr, IIRC – are we also doing ty already? I think the cost is more for more matchers changing.
pnkfelix: Could this go after Trait in impl Trait?
TC: This could make it seem like the use is in scope of the higher ranked for<..> binders when it's not. This is discussed in the RFC as a drawback of a different syntax that would put the generic arguments later.
NM: Maybe I was being a stickler about not putting the generics on impl. I have concerns about impl<> because (1) it is not a binder, (2) it doesn't give us precedent for closures, and (3) I think it'd potentially be useful for other things, but I recognize that impl<> is the "obvious" syntax. I'm curious what others think; I don't want to be the one blocking impl<> if others are feeling strongly about it. I do think it'll impact me a lot to see how often it appears in practice.
Josh: As one of the people who was opposed to use<..> originally, it has grown on me due to its extension to closures and TC's analogy of bringing things into scope. I'm now at least indifferent between the two.
pnkfelix: I'm in the same camp of impl<..> meaning "for all". I prefer use pretty strongly.
tmandry: I think I prefer use now. Part of it is being able to use it with closure captures.
TC: Let's take a straw poll of use before or after:
| person | impl use<..> Trait |
use<..> impl Trait |
|---|---|---|
| nikomatsakis | +0 | +1 |
| Josh | +1 | -0.5 |
| pnkfelix | +1 | +0.5 |
| tmandry | -0.25 | +1 |
| scottmcm | ±0 | ±0 |
| TC | +1 | +0 |
| errs | +1 | +0 |
| eholk | +1 | +0 |
TC: If we put use after, then we don't need to migrate the ty macro matcher. If we put it before, then we would migrate it according to our policy in RFC 3531:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3531
NM: Example macro:
macro_rules! test {
($t:ty) => {
0
};
(use a) => {
1
};
}
fn main() {
test!(use a);
}
NM: The challenge is that the macro currently commits using only a single token of lookahead, so it would commit to test! if you see use.
Strictly speaking we would have to make a ty_2021 and a ty to avoid breakage in macros like the above. We could do crater runs and test to get some idea of breakage but we can't know specifically.
NM: Interesting example:
fn func<...>(long: Params)
-> use<
Very, Long, Parameters,
> impl Trait + Trait2 + Trait3 {
...
}
vs.
fn func<...>(long: Params)
-> impl use<
Very, Long, Parameters,
> Trait + Trait2 + Trait3 {
...
}
vs.
fn func<...>(long: Params)
-> impl Trait + Trait2 + Trait3 use<
Very, Long, Parameters,
> {
...
}
Josh: Even aside from the macro matcher migration cost, I prefer use to come after impl.
CE: +1. use is not introducing a scope binder. It's using the generics.
TC: I had been originally sympathetic to putting the use first, but CE's point is moving me away from that. In Rust, when we apply generics to a type, the generics come after the type then bounds follow after that (e.g. in WCs). Here, we can think about the impl itself as representing the opaque existential type, then the generics that are part of the type follow in the use<..>, then the bounds follow after that. So in this sense, it feels consistent, and I'm curious, tmandry, if this resonates with you as it just did with me?
tmandry: I do see that. This is very subjective. I think that it's easier to figure out what use<T> impl Foo means, presuming you're familiar with impl Foo, then impl use<T> Foo.
CE: This is something that, either way, people will have to learn once then it will seem natural.
Consensus: We'll go forward with the RFC as it is – there's no clear consensus to change it to put use first. We can always reconsider at the stabilization step if feelings shift on this on the basis of more experience.
(tmandry: I've retroactively changed my vote for use first from +0.9 to +1 once I realized users will always be able to use the syntax in old macros, it would just require parentheses.)
pnkfelix: Given that the current implementation does not actually support capturing a subset of the type+const generics, is the plan to treat all occurrences of use<A,B> as a static error if {A,B,C} are all in scope?
errs: Yes, this is a hard error with an explanation that we currently require all ty/const params in scope to be mentioned.
errs: One other thing – if we ever decide, e.g. as Types+Lang, that it's impossible to ever drop ty and const params then we could just make it so that the A, B are redundant. This doesn't really matter though.
nikomatsakis: Is impl use<A> PartialEq<B> always an error?
errs: Yes, we can't instantiate the bounds of the opaque if it is parameterized over a param it doesn't capture.
nikomatsakis: Should we implicitly use the things that are named? We can do it later of course.
scottmcm: "Do it later if it turns out to be common enough" sounds like a good plan to me.
scottmcm: It's unclear how often this will arise and it's nice to know that the things that apear in the list are the full list.
CE: I agree with scottmcm's point that if we're going to be explicit, we might as well be fully explicit.
(The meeting ended here.)
-
Any changes
Be notified of any changes
-
Mention me
Be notified of mention me
-
Unsubscribe
Subscribe