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

Allow ~const on associated type bounds again #119894

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2024

Conversation

fmease
Copy link
Member

@fmease fmease commented Jan 12, 2024

This follows from this Zulip discussion.

Basically in my opinion, it makes sense to allow ~const on associated type bounds again since they're quite useful even though we haven't implemented the proposed syntax <Ty as ~const Trait>::Proj/<Ty as const Trait>::Proj yet; that can happen as a follow-up.

This already allows more code to compile since T::Assoc where T is a type parameter and where the predicate <T as ~const Trait> is in the environment gets elaborated to (pseudo) <T as ~const Trait>::Assoc.

#[const_trait]
trait Trait {
    type Assoc: ~const Trait;
    fn func() -> i32;
}

const fn function<T: ~const Trait>() -> i32 {
    T::Assoc::func()
}

~const associated type bounds also work together with const bounds:

struct Type<const N: i32>;

fn procedure<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::Assoc::func() }> { // `Trait` comes from above
    Type
}

NB: This PR also starts allowing ~const bounds in the generics and the where-clause of trait associated types since it's trivial to support them. However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful. Maybe we should continue to reject them?
For reference, it wouldn't make any sense to allow ~const Trait in GACs (generic associated constants, generic_const_items) because they'd be absolutely useless (contrary to const Trait).

[@]rustbot ping project-const-traits
r? project-const-traits

@fmease fmease added F-const_trait_impl `#![feature(const_trait_impl)]` F-effects `#![feature(effects)]` labels Jan 12, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added 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. labels Jan 12, 2024
@rustbot

This comment was marked as resolved.

@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@fmease fmease force-pushed the tilde-const-assoc-ty-bounds branch from ee9c39a to f283739 Compare January 12, 2024 16:22
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

compiler-errors commented Jan 12, 2024

However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful.

Yes, I think these GAT where bounds are both useful and necessary as long as we all ~const in item bound position. Some associated types may be conditionally ~const only if some generic type is ~const. For example:

#[const_trait] trait Foo {}
impl const Foo for Wrapper<T> where T: ~const Foo {}

#[const_trait] trait Bar {
  type Assoc<T: ~const Foo>: ~const Foo;
}
impl Bar for () {
  type Assoc<T: ~const Foo> = Wrapper<T>; // this is **only** `~const Foo` if `T: ~const Foo`
}

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 12, 2024

📌 Commit f283739 has been approved by compiler-errors

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-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 12, 2024
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2024
…, r=compiler-errors

Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again

This follows from [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits/topic/projections.20on.20.28~.29const.20Trait.20.26.20.28~.29const.20assoc.20ty.20bounds).

Basically in my opinion, it makes sense to allow `~const` on associated type bounds again since they're quite useful even though we haven't implemented the proposed syntax `<Ty as ~const Trait>::Proj`/`<Ty as const Trait>::Proj` yet; that can happen as a follow-up.

This already allows more code to compile since `T::Assoc` where `T` is a type parameter and where the predicate `<T as ~const Trait>` is in the environment gets elaborated to (pseudo) `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`.

```rs
#[const_trait]
trait Trait {
    type Assoc: ~const Trait;
    fn func() -> i32;
}

const fn function<T: ~const Trait>() -> i32 {
    T::Assoc::func()
}
```

`~const` associated type bounds also work together with `const` bounds:

```rs
struct Type<const N: i32>;

fn procedure<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::Assoc::func() }> { // `Trait` comes from above
    Type
}
```

NB: This PR also starts allowing `~const` bounds in the generics and the where-clause of trait associated types since it's trivial to support them. However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful. Maybe we should continue to reject them?
For reference, it wouldn't make any sense to allow `~const Trait` in GACs (generic associated constants, `generic_const_items`) because they'd be absolutely useless (contrary to `const Trait`).

~~[`@]rustbot` ping project-const-traits~~
r? project-const-traits
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#119891 (rename `reported_signature_mismatch` to reflect its use)
 - rust-lang#119894 (Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again)
 - rust-lang#119896 (Taint `_` placeholder types in trait impl method signatures)
 - rust-lang#119898 (Remove unused `ErrorReporting` variant from overflow handling)
 - rust-lang#119902 (fix typo in `fn()` docs)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2024
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 6 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#119587 (Varargs support for system ABI)
 - rust-lang#119891 (rename `reported_signature_mismatch` to reflect its use)
 - rust-lang#119894 (Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again)
 - rust-lang#119896 (Taint `_` placeholder types in trait impl method signatures)
 - rust-lang#119898 (Remove unused `ErrorReporting` variant from overflow handling)
 - rust-lang#119902 (fix typo in `fn()` docs)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 2c7ce1c into rust-lang:master Jan 13, 2024
11 checks passed
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.77.0 milestone Jan 13, 2024
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 13, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#119894 - fmease:tilde-const-assoc-ty-bounds, r=compiler-errors

Allow `~const` on associated type bounds again

This follows from [this Zulip discussion](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/419616-t-compiler.2Fproject-const-traits/topic/projections.20on.20.28~.29const.20Trait.20.26.20.28~.29const.20assoc.20ty.20bounds).

Basically in my opinion, it makes sense to allow `~const` on associated type bounds again since they're quite useful even though we haven't implemented the proposed syntax `<Ty as ~const Trait>::Proj`/`<Ty as const Trait>::Proj` yet; that can happen as a follow-up.

This already allows more code to compile since `T::Assoc` where `T` is a type parameter and where the predicate `<T as ~const Trait>` is in the environment gets elaborated to (pseudo) `<T as ~const Trait>::Assoc`.

```rs
#[const_trait]
trait Trait {
    type Assoc: ~const Trait;
    fn func() -> i32;
}

const fn function<T: ~const Trait>() -> i32 {
    T::Assoc::func()
}
```

`~const` associated type bounds also work together with `const` bounds:

```rs
struct Type<const N: i32>;

fn procedure<T: const Trait>() -> Type<{ T::Assoc::func() }> { // `Trait` comes from above
    Type
}
```

NB: This PR also starts allowing `~const` bounds in the generics and the where-clause of trait associated types since it's trivial to support them. However, I don't know if those bounds are actually useful. Maybe we should continue to reject them?
For reference, it wouldn't make any sense to allow `~const Trait` in GACs (generic associated constants, `generic_const_items`) because they'd be absolutely useless (contrary to `const Trait`).

~~[``@]rustbot`` ping project-const-traits~~
r? project-const-traits
@fmease fmease deleted the tilde-const-assoc-ty-bounds branch January 13, 2024 18:10
@fee1-dead fee1-dead added the PG-const-traits Project group: Const traits label Aug 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
F-const_trait_impl `#![feature(const_trait_impl)]` F-effects `#![feature(effects)]` PG-const-traits Project group: Const traits S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants