Stronger typing for DefId
s
#623
Labels
major-change
A proposal to make a major change to rustc
major-change-accepted
A major change proposal that was accepted
T-compiler
Add this label so rfcbot knows to poll the compiler team
Proposal
Currently, the compiler just uses
DefId
everywhere. This is bad for correctness (you just get ICEs instead of compiler errors when passing an ID of the wrong kind) and documentation (DefId
doesn't clearly document which kinds are expected).Instead, we should be using more strongly typed versions that assert that correct IDs are passed at compile time and clearly document which kinds are expected.
This MCP proposes to add strongly typed versions of def ids like
ModDefId
orTraitDefId
. These types will be used as much as possible when a specific def kind is expected.When a specific set of multiple def kinds is accepted, we can also create newtypes for such a set specifically.
This will lead to a hierarchy of (local) def ids. Casting up (like from a
TraitDefId
to aDefId
) will be possible usingFrom
andIntoQueryParam
impls to make it as implicit as possible as there is no concern with such casts. I am not entirely sure yet on how to best write the required macros and impls to make sure that the addition of new IDs is as simple as possible, but this is my goal.Local versions of all the typed def ids will exist as well.
I have already created an MVP PR for
ModDefId
and the results are quite promising: rust-lang/rust#110862Mentors or Reviewers
I will not have the time to implement it all by myself, but I may be able to do some of the generic work necessary for making it easy to add new typed def ids. This is a big change affecting all regions of code.
Process
The main points of the Major Change Process are as follows:
@rustbot second
.-C flag
, then full team check-off is required.@rfcbot fcp merge
on either the MCP or the PR.You can read more about Major Change Proposals on forge.
Comments
This issue is not meant to be used for technical discussion. There is a Zulip stream for that. Use this issue to leave procedural comments, such as volunteering to review, indicating that you second the proposal (or third, etc), or raising a concern that you would like to be addressed.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: