Tracking issue for RFC 3617 precise capturing of types #130043
Assignees
Labels
B-RFC-approved
Blocker: Approved by a merged RFC but not yet implemented.
C-tracking-issue
Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
F-precise_capturing_of_types
`#![feature(precise_capturing_of_types)]`
F-precise_capturing
`#![feature(precise_capturing)]`
S-tracking-unimplemented
Status: The feature has not been implemented.
T-lang
Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
traviscross
added
T-lang
|
I had added an example in #130031 (which I closed in favor of this issue) |
|
Because I thought I was seeing double for a moment, for future reference, these two issues are related for obvious reasons, but currently... |
7 tasks
fmease
added
the
S-tracking-unimplemented
smalis-msft
added a commit
to microsoft/openvmm
that referenced
this issue
Jan 14, 2025
…528) The Rust 2024 edition will be changing how `impl Trait` in return position functions. Namely it will be changing the rules from capturing no lifetimes, to capturing all lifetimes. The reasons for this are documented in [RFC 3498](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/3498-lifetime-capture-rules-2024.md) and [the migration guide](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/rpit-lifetime-capture.html). A new 'precise capturing' syntax has been added to allow cases that don't need everything captured to scope down what they take. This PR updates all such cases to use the new syntax. Note that currently this new syntax requires all type parameters in scope to be listed. This currently results in overcapturing of type parameters. This will be relaxed in the future, and is tracked by [RFC 3617](rust-lang/rust#130043). This PR also marks the edition_2024_expr_fragment_specifier lint as no longer needing fixing, as I have completed an audit of all our macros that it flagged and none of them need changing. Part of #288
traviscross
added
the
B-RFC-approved
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 26, 2025
…in-traits, r=oli-obk,traviscross Stabilize `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` # Precise capturing (`+ use<>` bounds) in traits - Stabilization Report Fixes rust-lang#130044. ## Stabilization summary This report proposes the stabilization of `use<>` precise capturing bounds in return-position impl traits in traits (RPITITs). This completes a missing part of [RFC 3617 "Precise capturing"]. Precise capturing in traits was not ready for stabilization when the first subset was proposed for stabilization (namely, RPITs on free and inherent functions - rust-lang#127672) since this feature has a slightly different implementation, and it hadn't yet been implemented or tested at the time. It is now complete, and the type system implications of this stabilization are detailed below. ## Motivation Currently, RPITITs capture all in-scope lifetimes, according to the decision made in the ["lifetime capture rules 2024" RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3498-lifetime-capture-rules-2024.html#return-position-impl-trait-in-trait-rpitit). However, traits can be designed such that some lifetimes in arguments may not want to be captured. There is currently no way to express this. ## Major design decisions since the RFC No major decisions were made. This is simply an extension to the RFC that was understood as a follow-up from the original stabilization. ## What is stabilized? Users may write `+ use<'a, T>` bounds on their RPITITs. This conceptually modifies the desugaring of the RPITIT to omit the lifetimes that we would copy over from the method. For example, ```rust trait Foo { fn method<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized; // ... desugars to something like: type RPITIT_1<'a>: Sized; fn method_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_1<'a>; // ... whereas with precise capturing ... fn precise<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized + use<Self>; // ... desugars to something like: type RPITIT_2: Sized; fn precise_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_2; } ``` And thus the GAT doesn't name `'a`. In the compiler internals, it's not implemented exactly like this, but not in a way that users should expect to be able to observe. #### Limitations on what generics must be captured Currently, we require that all generics from the trait (including the `Self`) type are captured. This is because the generics from the trait are required to be *invariant* in order to do associated type normalization. And like regular precise capturing bounds, all type and const generics in scope must be captured. Thus, only the in-scope method lifetimes may be relaxed with this syntax today. ## What isn't stabilized? (a.k.a. potential future work) See section above. Relaxing the requirement to capture all type and const generics in scope may be relaxed when rust-lang#130043 is implemented, however it currently interacts with some underexplored corners of the type system (e.g. unconstrained type bivariance) so I don't expect it to come soon after. ## Implementation summary This functionality is implemented analogously to the way that *opaque type* precise capturing works. Namely, we currently use *variance* to model the capturedness of lifetimes. However, since RPITITs are anonymous GATs instead of opaque types, we instead modify the type relation of GATs to consider variances for RPITITs (along with opaque types which it has done since rust-lang#103491). https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/30f168ef811aec63124eac677e14699baa9395bd/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/util.rs#L954-L976 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/30f168ef811aec63124eac677e14699baa9395bd/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/relate.rs#L240-L244 Using variance to model capturedness is an implementation detail, and in the future it would be desirable if opaques and RPITITs simply did not include the uncaptured lifetimes in their generics. This can be changed in a forwards-compatible way, and almost certainly would not be observable by users (at least not negatively, since it may indeed fix some bugs along the way). ## Tests * Test that the lifetime isn't actually captured: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives-2.rs`. * Technical test for variance computation: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/variance.rs`. * Test that you must capture all trait generics: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/forgot-to-capture-type.rs`. * Test that you cannot capture more than what the trait specifies: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-captures-more-method-lifetimes.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-impl-captures-too-much.rs`. * Undercapturing (refinement) lint: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/refine-captures.rs`. ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? I don't believe that this exposes any new unstable features indirectly. ## Remaining bugs and open issues Not aware of any open issues or bugs. ## Tooling support Rustfmt: ✅ Supports formatting `+ use<>` everywhere. Clippy: ✅ No support needed, unless specific clippy lints are impl'd to care for precise capturing itself. Rustdoc: ✅ Rendering `+ use<>` precise capturing bounds is supported. Rust-analyzer: ✅ Parser support, and then lifetime support isn't needed rust-lang#138128 (comment) (previous: ~~:question: There is parser support, but I am unsure of rust-analyzer's level of support for RPITITs in general.~~) ## History Tracking issue: rust-lang#130044 * rust-lang#131033 * rust-lang#132795 * rust-lang#136554
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 26, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#138128 - compiler-errors:precise-capturing-in-traits, r=oli-obk,traviscross Stabilize `#![feature(precise_capturing_in_traits)]` # Precise capturing (`+ use<>` bounds) in traits - Stabilization Report Fixes rust-lang#130044. ## Stabilization summary This report proposes the stabilization of `use<>` precise capturing bounds in return-position impl traits in traits (RPITITs). This completes a missing part of [RFC 3617 "Precise capturing"]. Precise capturing in traits was not ready for stabilization when the first subset was proposed for stabilization (namely, RPITs on free and inherent functions - rust-lang#127672) since this feature has a slightly different implementation, and it hadn't yet been implemented or tested at the time. It is now complete, and the type system implications of this stabilization are detailed below. ## Motivation Currently, RPITITs capture all in-scope lifetimes, according to the decision made in the ["lifetime capture rules 2024" RFC](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3498-lifetime-capture-rules-2024.html#return-position-impl-trait-in-trait-rpitit). However, traits can be designed such that some lifetimes in arguments may not want to be captured. There is currently no way to express this. ## Major design decisions since the RFC No major decisions were made. This is simply an extension to the RFC that was understood as a follow-up from the original stabilization. ## What is stabilized? Users may write `+ use<'a, T>` bounds on their RPITITs. This conceptually modifies the desugaring of the RPITIT to omit the lifetimes that we would copy over from the method. For example, ```rust trait Foo { fn method<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized; // ... desugars to something like: type RPITIT_1<'a>: Sized; fn method_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_1<'a>; // ... whereas with precise capturing ... fn precise<'a>(&'a self) -> impl Sized + use<Self>; // ... desugars to something like: type RPITIT_2: Sized; fn precise_desugared<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::RPITIT_2; } ``` And thus the GAT doesn't name `'a`. In the compiler internals, it's not implemented exactly like this, but not in a way that users should expect to be able to observe. #### Limitations on what generics must be captured Currently, we require that all generics from the trait (including the `Self`) type are captured. This is because the generics from the trait are required to be *invariant* in order to do associated type normalization. And like regular precise capturing bounds, all type and const generics in scope must be captured. Thus, only the in-scope method lifetimes may be relaxed with this syntax today. ## What isn't stabilized? (a.k.a. potential future work) See section above. Relaxing the requirement to capture all type and const generics in scope may be relaxed when rust-lang#130043 is implemented, however it currently interacts with some underexplored corners of the type system (e.g. unconstrained type bivariance) so I don't expect it to come soon after. ## Implementation summary This functionality is implemented analogously to the way that *opaque type* precise capturing works. Namely, we currently use *variance* to model the capturedness of lifetimes. However, since RPITITs are anonymous GATs instead of opaque types, we instead modify the type relation of GATs to consider variances for RPITITs (along with opaque types which it has done since rust-lang#103491). https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/30f168ef811aec63124eac677e14699baa9395bd/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/util.rs#L954-L976 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/30f168ef811aec63124eac677e14699baa9395bd/compiler/rustc_type_ir/src/relate.rs#L240-L244 Using variance to model capturedness is an implementation detail, and in the future it would be desirable if opaques and RPITITs simply did not include the uncaptured lifetimes in their generics. This can be changed in a forwards-compatible way, and almost certainly would not be observable by users (at least not negatively, since it may indeed fix some bugs along the way). ## Tests * Test that the lifetime isn't actually captured: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-outlives-2.rs`. * Technical test for variance computation: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/variance.rs`. * Test that you must capture all trait generics: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/forgot-to-capture-type.rs`. * Test that you cannot capture more than what the trait specifies: `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-captures-more-method-lifetimes.rs` and `tests/ui/impl-trait/precise-capturing/rpitit-impl-captures-too-much.rs`. * Undercapturing (refinement) lint: `tests/ui/impl-trait/in-trait/refine-captures.rs`. ### What other unstable features may be exposed by this feature? I don't believe that this exposes any new unstable features indirectly. ## Remaining bugs and open issues Not aware of any open issues or bugs. ## Tooling support Rustfmt: ✅ Supports formatting `+ use<>` everywhere. Clippy: ✅ No support needed, unless specific clippy lints are impl'd to care for precise capturing itself. Rustdoc: ✅ Rendering `+ use<>` precise capturing bounds is supported. Rust-analyzer: ✅ Parser support, and then lifetime support isn't needed rust-lang#138128 (comment) (previous: ~~:question: There is parser support, but I am unsure of rust-analyzer's level of support for RPITITs in general.~~) ## History Tracking issue: rust-lang#130044 * rust-lang#131033 * rust-lang#132795 * rust-lang#136554
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The feature gate for the issue is
#![feature(precise_capturing_of_types)].This tracking issue covers extending the
precise_capturingfeature to allow for the partial capturing of type and const generic parameters.About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation. They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions. A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature. Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.
Steps
precise_capturingsyntax #123432Unresolved Questions
TODO.
Related
TODO.
cc @compiler-errors
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: