Add an opt-out in pretty printing for RTN rendering
Today, we render RPITIT types like `impl Sized { T::method(..) }` when RTN is enabled. This is very useful for diagnostics, since it's often not clear what the `impl Sized` type means by itself, and it makes it clear that that's an RPITIT that can be bounded using RTN syntax. See #115624.
However, since we don't distinguish types that are rendered for the purposes of printing messages vs suggestions, this representation leaks into suggestions and turns into code that can't be parsed. This PR adds a new `with_types_for_suggestion! {}` and `with_types_for_signature! {}` options to the pretty printing architecture to make it clear that we're rendering a type for code suggestions.
This can be applied later as we find that we need it.
change definitely unproductive cycles to error
builds on top of #136824 by adding a third variant to `PathKind` for paths which may change to be coinductive in the future but must not be so right now. Most notably, impl where-clauses of not yet coinductive traits.
With this, we can change cycles which are definitely unproductive to a proper error. This fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/trait-system-refactor-initiative/issues/114. This does not affect stable as we keep these cycles as ambiguous during coherence.
r? ````````@compiler-errors```````` ````````@nikomatsakis````````
When encountering a resolve E0575 error for an associated method (when a type was expected), see if it could have been an intended return type notation bound.
```
error[E0575]: expected associated type, found associated function `Trait::method`
--> $DIR/bad-inputs-and-output.rs:31:36
|
LL | fn foo_qualified<T: Trait>() where <T as Trait>::method(i32): Send {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ not a associated type
|
help: you might have meant to use the return type notation syntax
|
LL - fn foo_qualified<T: Trait>() where <T as Trait>::method(i32): Send {}
LL + fn foo_qualified<T: Trait>() where T::method(..): Send {}
|
```
```
error[E0610]: `{integer}` is a primitive type and therefore doesn't have fields
--> $DIR/attempted-access-non-fatal.rs:7:15
|
LL | let _ = 2.l;
| ^
|
help: if intended to be a floating point literal, consider adding a `0` after the period and a `f64` suffix
|
LL - let _ = 2.l;
LL + let _ = 2.0f64;
|
```
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Compiler & its UI tests: Rename remaining occurrences of "object safe" to "dyn compatible"
Follow-up to #130826.
Part of #130852.
1. 1st commit: Fix stupid oversights. Should've been part of #130826.
2. 2nd commit: Rename the unstable feature `object_safe_for_dispatch` to `dyn_compatible_for_dispatch`. Might not be worth the churn, you decide.
3. 3rd commit: Apply the renaming to all UI tests (contents and paths).
Fix associated item removal suggestion
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal (treating it as a `help`). We now properly suggest to remove the code that needs to be removed.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
We were previously telling people to write what was already there, instead of removal.
```
error[E0229]: associated item constraints are not allowed here
--> $DIR/E0229.rs:13:25
|
LL | fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
| ^^^^^^^ associated item constraint not allowed here
|
help: consider removing this associated item binding
|
LL - fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo<A = Bar>>::A) {}
LL + fn baz<I>(x: &<I as Foo>::A) {}
|
```
Suggest associated type bounds on problematic associated equality bounds
Fixes#105056. TL;DR: Suggest `Trait<Ty: Bound>` on `Trait<Ty = Bound>` in Rust >=2021.
~~Blocked on #122055 (stabilization of `associated_type_bounds`), I'd say.~~ (merged)
With associated type bounds enabled, the implied_predicates and super_predicates
queries may differ for traits, since associated type bounds are also
implied but are not counted as super predicates.
