​​GAT use case analysis

​​Limitations re. bounds & constraints

  • ​​Bounds on the trait itself, e.g. trait Foo { type Bar<'a>: Baz; }​
  • ​​Bounds on the parameters of an associated type, e.g. trait Foo { type Bar<T: >; }​
​​
​​// The following should be equivalent:
​​
​​trait Foo  {
​​    type Bar<B: SomeBound>: OtherBound;
​​}
​​
​​trait Foo where for<B: SomeBound> Self::Bar<B>: OtherBound {
​​    type Bar<B> where B: SomeBound;
​​}
​​
  • ​​Most of our examples don’t use any bounds at all; those that do tend to bound the associated type itself, not its parameter
  • ​​Question for Niko: Which is the problem that chalk is a must-have for? Bounds on B​ or on Bar​?

​​Motivations

  • ​​Breaking changes for libraries that would want to use GATs; would allow for earlier “1.0” / highly stable APIs
  • ​​Sometimes holding back really essential API work, e.g. being able to abstract over async functions that borrow

​​Example use cases

​​Simple lifetime-parametric types

​​Streaming iterators
​​Important in async I/O world
  • ​​How important is somewhat TBD, unclear whether this blocks stabilizing a Stream​ trait or whether we will want two traits
​​
​​trait Iterator {
​​    type Item<'a> where Self: 'a;
​​    fn next<'a>(&'a mut self) -> Self::Item<'a>;
​​}
​​
​​Proptest strategies
​​https://docs.rs/proptest/0.9.1/proptest/strategy/trait.ValueTree.html
​​
​​pub trait ValueTree {
​​    type Value<'a>: fmt::Debug where Self: 'a;
​​    fn current<'a>(&'a self) -> Self::Value<'a>;
​​    fn simplify(&mut self) -> bool;
​​    fn complicate(&mut self) -> bool;
​​}
​​pub trait Strategy: fmt::Debug {
​​    /// The value tree generated by this `Strategy`.
​​    type Tree: ValueTree<Value = Self::Value>;
​​
​​    /// The type of value used by functions under test generated by this Strategy.
​​    type Value<'a>: fmt::Debug;
​​
​​    /// Generate a new value tree from the given runner.
​​    fn new_tree(&self, runner: &mut TestRunner) -> NewTree<Self>;
​​}