Repository navigation
Annotating higher-ranked lifetimes on closures is arduous #58052
Description
Activity
- changed the title
[-]Annotating higher-ranked lifetimes on closures is arduous.[/-][+]Annotating higher-ranked lifetimes on closures is arduous[/+]on Feb 1, 2019 - addedA-lifetimesArea: Lifetimes / regionsArea: Lifetimes / regionsA-closuresArea: Closures (`|…| { … }`)Area: Closures (`|…| { … }`)T-langRelevant to the language teamRelevant to the language team
on Feb 1, 2019 I think that:
fn main() { let f = |x: &i32| x; let f = |x: &i32| -> &i32 { x }; let f: impl for<'a> Fn(&'a i32) -> &'a i32 = |x| x; let f = for<'a> |x: &'a i32| -> &'a i32 { x }; let i = &3; let j = f(i); }
should all be equivalent (well ~ the opaque nature of
impl ...) and Just Work.ISTM that
for<'a>isn't properly inferred when youletbind a closure unlike when you pass it immediately to a function. I see no good justification for that right now.As for introducing
for<'a> |x: &'a| ...it's on my TODO list wrt.for<T: Debug>and generic closures in general. I've been working on a draft but haven't messed with it for a while.👍 It will be very nice to have higher-ranked lifetimes for closure. (Very nice to write easily schedulable tasks)
- added a commit that references this issue
on Aug 29, 2020 Is there any plans for smth. like
for<'a,'b: 'a> impl Fn(&'a T)->U? (syntax is really bad, but still) Because we don't have any way to say "for all lifetimes that are shorter (or longer) then 'x ..." i.e. bounded quantification for lifetimes?.We don't presently have clear plans to support this syntax, although we are actively at work on extending rustc internally to support that sort of thing.
Reacted by memoryruins, SafariMonkey, WATANABE Yuki, Jakub Beránek, simonsan and Samuel Hurel#98705 implemented the closure lifetime binder syntax. However, the syntax requires the user to fully specify the type signature, so I'd argue that using higher-ranked lifetimes on closures are still tedious.
Another use case where one runs into this issue:
fn print_ref(value: &i32) { println!("{value}"); } fn main() { let f = |x| print_ref(x); { let y = 1; f(&y); } { let z = 2; f(&z); } }
Compile error
error[E0597]: `y` does not live long enough --> src/main.rs:9:11 | 8 | let y = 1; | - binding `y` declared here 9 | f(&y); | ^^ borrowed value does not live long enough 10 | } | - `y` dropped here while still borrowed ... 13 | f(&z); | - borrow later used here For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0597`. error: could not compile `playground` (bin "playground") due to 1 previous errorHowever, for some reason, annotating the type with
|x: &i32|makes the code compile.The workaround that compiles
fn print_ref(value: &i32) { println!("{value}"); } fn main() { let f = |x: &i32| print_ref(x); { let y = 1; f(&y); } { let z = 2; f(&z); } }
- marked Trait implementation solving fails for a closure #138805 as a duplicate of this issue
on Mar 21, 2025
Executive summary: If you want to make a closure returning a higher-ranked lifetime, you need to use a helper like
fn annotate<T,F>(f: F) -> F where F: Fn(&T) -> &T { f }. We could probably do better.Spawned off of #22557 (comment) (and possibly a duplicate of #22340 )
Consider this code (play):
It doesn't compile. And its diagnostic is pretty hard to understand.
You can see an explanation from @nikomatsakis about why it doesn't compile here: #22557 (comment)
With
#![feature(nll)], it still doesn't compile; the diagnostic is slightly better:The aforementioned explanation claims that adding a return type will get it to compile. But when I tried that, it did not work, both with and without
#:yields (and we'll leave #58053 in its own bug):
So what gives? Well, I think when @nikomatsakis claimed that an explicit return type would work, they were assuming that an explicit return type would cause lifetime elision rules to apply such that the same lifetime would be provided for the input and output reference-types on
f. But as we saw in #56537, lifetime elision rules do not apply to closure return type annotations.So what we want is to say that we have a lifetime parametric closure, with a type something like
for<'a> Fn(&'a i32) -> &'a i32. But no, that's not a type, its a trait bound, so this does not work either (play):yields:
An approach that does work is to feed in the trait bound explicitly via a helper function, like this (play):
But that seems like a pretty arduous way to encode a relatively simple pattern. If you look at #22340 (comment), you can see others have suggested syntaxes like
for <'a> |x: &'a i32| -> &'a i32 { x }, (where thefor <'a> CLOSURE_EXPRis the new interesting expression form), which would be more convenient for addressing cases like ths.