Summary

Introduce the bound form MyTrait<AssociatedType: Bounds>, permitted anywhere a bound of the form MyTrait<AssociatedType = T> would be allowed. The bound T: Trait<AssociatedType: Bounds> desugars to the bounds T: Trait and <T as Trait>::AssociatedType: Bounds. See the reference and rationale for exact details.

Motivation

Currently, when specifying a bound using a trait that has an associated type, the developer can specify the precise type via the syntax MyTrait<AssociatedType = T>. With the introduction of the impl Trait syntax for static-dispatch existential types, this syntax also permits MyTrait<AssociatedType = impl Bounds>, as a shorthand for introducing a new type variable and specifying those bounds.

However, this introduces an unnecessary level of indirection that does not match the developer’s intuition and mental model as well as it could. In particular, given the ability to write bounds on a type variable as T: Bounds, it makes sense to permit writing bounds on an associated type directly. This results in the simpler syntax MyTrait<AssociatedType: Bounds>.

Guide-level explanation

Instead of specifying a concrete type for an associated type, we can specify a bound on the associated type, to ensure that it implements specific traits, as seen in the example below:

fn print_all<T: Iterator<Item: Display>>(printables: T) {
    for p in printables {
        println!("{}", p);
    }
}

In anonymous existential types

fn printables() -> impl Iterator<Item: Display> {
    // ..
}

Further examples

Instead of writing:

impl<I> Clone for Peekable<I>
where
    I: Clone + Iterator,
    <I as Iterator>::Item: Clone,
{
    // ..
}

you may write:

impl<I> Clone for Peekable<I>
where
    I: Clone + Iterator<Item: Clone>
{
    // ..
}

or replace the where clause entirely:

impl<I: Clone + Iterator<Item: Clone>> Clone for Peekable<I> {
    // ..
}

Reference-level explanation

The surface syntax T: Trait<AssociatedType: Bounds> should desugar to a pair of bounds: T: Trait and <T as Trait>::AssociatedType: Bounds. Rust currently allows both of those bounds anywhere a bound can currently appear; the new syntax does not introduce any new semantics.

Additionally, the surface syntax impl Trait<AssociatedType: Bounds> turns into a named type variable T, universal or existential depending on context, with the usual bound T: Trait along with the added bound <T as Trait>::AssociatedType: Bounds.

Meanwhile, the surface syntax dyn Trait<AssociatedType: Bounds> desugars into dyn Trait<AssociatedType = T> where T is a named type variable T with the bound T: Bounds.

The desugaring for associated types

In the case of an associated type having a bound of the form:

trait TraitA {
    type AssocA: TraitB<AssocB: TraitC>;
}

we desugar to an anonymous associated type for AssocB, which corresponds to:

trait TraitA {
    type AssocA: TraitB<AssocB = Self::AssocA_0>;
    type AssocA_0: TraitC; // Associated type is Unnamed!
}

Notes on the meaning of impl Trait<Assoc: Bound>

Note that in the context -> impl Trait<Assoc: Bound>, since the Trait is existentially quantified, the Assoc is as well. Semantically speaking, fn printables.. is equivalent to:

fn printables() -> impl Iterator<Item = impl Display> { .. }

For arg: impl Trait<Assoc: Bound>, it is semantically equivalent to: arg: impl Trait<Assoc = impl Bound>.

Meaning of existential type Foo: Trait<Assoc: Bound>

Given:

existential type Foo: Trait<Assoc: Bound>;

it can be seen as the same as:

existential type Foo: Trait<Assoc = _0>;
existential type _0: Bound;

This syntax is specified in RFC 2071. As in that RFC, this documentation uses the non-final syntax for existential type aliases.

Drawbacks

Rust code can already express this using the desugared form. This proposal just introduces a simpler surface syntax that parallels other uses of bounds. As always, when introducing new syntactic forms, an increased burden is put on developers to know about and understand those forms, and this proposal is no different. However, we believe that the parallel to the use of bounds elsewhere makes this new syntax immediately recognizable and understandable.

Rationale and alternatives

As with any new surface syntax, one alternative is simply not introducing the syntax at all. That would still leave developers with the MyTrait<AssociatedType = impl Bounds> form. However, allowing the more direct bounds syntax provides a better parallel to the use of bounds elsewhere. The introduced form in this RFC is comparatively both shorter and clearer.

An alternative desugaring of bounds on associated types

An alternative desugaring of the following definition:

trait TraitA {
    type AssocA: TraitB<AssocB: TraitC>;
}

is to add the where clause, as specified above, to the trait, desugaring to:

trait TraitA
where
    <Self::AssocA as TraitB>::AssocB: TraitC,
{
    type AssocA: TraitB;
}

However, at the time of this writing, a Rust compiler will treat this differently than the desugaring proposed in the reference. The following snippet illustrates the difference:

trait Foo where <Self::Bar as Iterator>::Item: Copy {
    type Bar: Iterator;
}

trait Foo2 {
    type Bar: Iterator<Item = Self::BarItem>;
    type BarItem: Copy;
}

fn use_foo<X: Foo>(arg: X)
where <X::Bar as Iterator>::Item: Copy
// ^-- Remove this line and it will error with:
// error[E0277]: `<<X as Foo>::Bar as std::iter::Iterator>::Item` doesn't implement `Copy`
{
    let item: <X::Bar as Iterator>::Item;
}

fn use_foo2<X: Foo2>(arg: X) {
    let item: <X::Bar as Iterator>::Item;
}

The desugaring with a where therefore becomes problematic from a perspective of usability.

However, RFC 2089, Implied Bounds specifies that desugaring to the where clause in the trait will permit the use_foo function to omit its where clause. This entails that both desugarings become equivalent from the point of view of a user. The desugaring with where therefore becomes viable in the presence of RFC 2089.

Unresolved questions

  • Does allowing this for dyn trait objects introduce any unforeseen issues? This can be resolved during stabilization.

  • The exact desugaring in the context of putting bounds on an associated type of a trait is left unresolved. The semantics should however be preserved. This is also the case with other desugarings in this RFC.