Lowering rules
This section gives the complete lowering rules for Rust traits into program clauses. It is a kind of reference. These rules reference the domain goals defined in an earlier section.
Notation
The nonterminal Pi
is used to mean some generic parameter, either a
named lifetime like 'a
or a type parameter like A
.
The nonterminal Ai
is used to mean some generic argument, which
might be a lifetime like 'a
or a type like Vec<A>
.
When defining the lowering rules, we will give goals and clauses in
the notation given in this section.
We sometimes insert "macros" like LowerWhereClause!
into these
definitions; these macros reference other sections within this chapter.
Rule names and cross-references
Each of these lowering rules is given a name, documented with a comment like so:
// Rule Foo-Bar-Baz
The reference implementation of these rules is to be found in
chalk/chalk-solve/src/clauses.rs
. They are also ported in
rustc in the librustc_traits
crate.
Lowering where clauses
When used in a goal position, where clauses can be mapped directly to
the Holds
variant of domain goals, as follows:
A0: Foo<A1..An>
maps toImplemented(A0: Foo<A1..An>)
T: 'r
maps toOutlives(T, 'r)
'a: 'b
maps toOutlives('a, 'b)
A0: Foo<A1..An, Item = T>
is a bit special and expands to two distinct goals, namelyImplemented(A0: Foo<A1..An>)
andProjectionEq(<A0 as Foo<A1..An>>::Item = T)
In the rules below, we will use WC
to indicate where clauses that
appear in Rust syntax; we will then use the same WC
to indicate
where those where clauses appear as goals in the program clauses that
we are producing. In that case, the mapping above is used to convert
from the Rust syntax into goals.
Transforming the lowered where clauses
In addition, in the rules below, we sometimes do some transformations on the lowered where clauses, as defined here:
FromEnv(WC)
– this indicates that:Implemented(TraitRef)
becomesFromEnv(TraitRef)
- other where-clauses are left intact
WellFormed(WC)
– this indicates that:Implemented(TraitRef)
becomesWellFormed(TraitRef)
- other where-clauses are left intact
TODO: I suspect that we want to alter the outlives relations too, but Chalk isn't modeling those right now.
Lowering traits
Given a trait definition
trait Trait<P1..Pn> // P0 == Self
where WC
{
// trait items
}
we will produce a number of declarations. This section is focused on
the program clauses for the trait header (i.e., the stuff outside the
{}
); the section on trait items covers the stuff
inside the {}
.
Trait header
From the trait itself we mostly make "meta" rules that setup the
relationships between different kinds of domain goals. The first such
rule from the trait header creates the mapping between the FromEnv
and Implemented
predicates:
// Rule Implemented-From-Env
forall<Self, P1..Pn> {
Implemented(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) :- FromEnv(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>)
}
Implied bounds
The next few clauses have to do with implied bounds (see also RFC 2089 and the implied bounds chapter for a more in depth cover). For each trait, we produce two clauses:
// Rule Implied-Bound-From-Trait
//
// For each where clause WC:
forall<Self, P1..Pn> {
FromEnv(WC) :- FromEnv(Self: Trait<P1..Pn)
}
This clause says that if we are assuming that the trait holds, then we can also assume that its where-clauses hold. It's perhaps useful to see an example:
trait Eq: PartialEq { ... }
In this case, the PartialEq
supertrait is equivalent to a where Self: PartialEq
where clause, in our simplified model. The program
clause above therefore states that if we can prove FromEnv(T: Eq)
–
e.g., if we are in some function with T: Eq
in its where clauses –
then we also know that FromEnv(T: PartialEq)
. Thus the set of things
that follow from the environment are not only the direct where
clauses but also things that follow from them.
The next rule is related; it defines what it means for a trait reference to be well-formed:
// Rule WellFormed-TraitRef
forall<Self, P1..Pn> {
WellFormed(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) :- Implemented(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) && WellFormed(WC)
}
This WellFormed
rule states that T: Trait
is well-formed if (a)
T: Trait
is implemented and (b) all the where-clauses declared on
Trait
are well-formed (and hence they are implemented). Remember
that the WellFormed
predicate is
coinductive; in this
case, it is serving as a kind of "carrier" that allows us to enumerate
all the where clauses that are transitively implied by T: Trait
.
An example:
trait Foo: A + Bar { }
trait Bar: B + Foo { }
trait A { }
trait B { }
Here, the transitive set of implications for T: Foo
are T: A
, T: Bar
, and
T: B
. And indeed if we were to try to prove WellFormed(T: Foo)
, we would
have to prove each one of those:
WellFormed(T: Foo)
Implemented(T: Foo)
WellFormed(T: A)
Implemented(T: A)
WellFormed(T: Bar)
Implemented(T: Bar)
WellFormed(T: B)
Implemented(T: Bar)
WellFormed(T: Foo)
-- cycle, true coinductively
This WellFormed
predicate is only used when proving that impls are
well-formed – basically, for each impl of some trait ref TraitRef
,
we must show that WellFormed(TraitRef)
. This in turn justifies the
implied bounds rules that allow us to extend the set of FromEnv
items.
Lowering type definitions
We also want to have some rules which define when a type is well-formed. For example, given this type:
struct Set<K> where K: Hash { ... }
then Set<i32>
is well-formed because i32
implements Hash
, but
Set<NotHash>
would not be well-formed. Basically, a type is well-formed
if its parameters verify the where clauses written on the type definition.
Hence, for every type definition:
struct Type<P1..Pn> where WC { ... }
we produce the following rule:
// Rule WellFormed-Type
forall<P1..Pn> {
WellFormed(Type<P1..Pn>) :- WC
}
Note that we use struct
for defining a type, but this should be understood
as a general type definition (it could be e.g. a generic enum
).
Conversely, we define rules which say that if we assume that a type is well-formed, we can also assume that its where clauses hold. That is, we produce the following family of rules:
// Rule Implied-Bound-From-Type
//
// For each where clause `WC`
forall<P1..Pn> {
FromEnv(WC) :- FromEnv(Type<P1..Pn>)
}
As for the implied bounds RFC, functions will assume that their arguments are well-formed. For example, suppose we have the following bit of code:
trait Hash: Eq { }
struct Set<K: Hash> { ... }
fn foo<K>(collection: Set<K>, x: K, y: K) {
// `x` and `y` can be equalized even if we did not explicitly write
// `where K: Eq`
if x == y {
...
}
}
In the foo
function, we assume that Set<K>
is well-formed, i.e. we have
FromEnv(Set<K>)
in our environment. Because of the previous rule, we get
FromEnv(K: Hash)
without needing an explicit where clause. And because
of the Hash
trait definition, there also exists a rule which says:
forall<K> {
FromEnv(K: Eq) :- FromEnv(K: Hash)
}
which means that we finally get FromEnv(K: Eq)
and then can compare x
and y
without needing an explicit where clause.
Lowering trait items
Associated type declarations
Given a trait that declares a (possibly generic) associated type:
trait Trait<P1..Pn> // P0 == Self
where WC
{
type AssocType<Pn+1..Pm>: Bounds where WC1;
}
We will produce a number of program clauses. The first two define
the rules by which ProjectionEq
can succeed; these two clauses are discussed
in detail in the section on associated types,
but reproduced here for reference:
// Rule ProjectionEq-Normalize
//
// ProjectionEq can succeed by normalizing:
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm, U> {
ProjectionEq(<Self as Trait<P1..Pn>>::AssocType<Pn+1..Pm> = U) :-
Normalize(<Self as Trait<P1..Pn>>::AssocType<Pn+1..Pm> -> U)
}
// Rule ProjectionEq-Placeholder
//
// ProjectionEq can succeed through the placeholder associated type,
// see "associated type" chapter for more:
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm> {
ProjectionEq(
<Self as Trait<P1..Pn>>::AssocType<Pn+1..Pm> =
(Trait::AssocType)<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm>
)
}
The next rule covers implied bounds for the projection. In particular,
the Bounds
declared on the associated type must have been proven to hold
to show that the impl is well-formed, and hence we can rely on them
elsewhere.
// Rule Implied-Bound-From-AssocTy
//
// For each `Bound` in `Bounds`:
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm> {
FromEnv(<Self as Trait<P1..Pn>>::AssocType<Pn+1..Pm>>: Bound) :-
FromEnv(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) && WC1
}
Next, we define the requirements for an instantiation of our associated type to be well-formed...
// Rule WellFormed-AssocTy
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm> {
WellFormed((Trait::AssocType)<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm>) :-
Implemented(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) && WC1
}
...along with the reverse implications, when we can assume that it is well-formed.
// Rule Implied-WC-From-AssocTy
//
// For each where clause WC1:
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm> {
FromEnv(WC1) :- FromEnv((Trait::AssocType)<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm>)
}
// Rule Implied-Trait-From-AssocTy
forall<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm> {
FromEnv(Self: Trait<P1..Pn>) :-
FromEnv((Trait::AssocType)<Self, P1..Pn, Pn+1..Pm>)
}
Lowering function and constant declarations
Chalk didn't model functions and constants, but I would eventually like to treat them exactly like normalization. See the section on function/constant values below for more details.
Lowering impls
Given an impl of a trait:
impl<P0..Pn> Trait<A1..An> for A0
where WC
{
// zero or more impl items
}
Let TraitRef
be the trait reference A0: Trait<A1..An>
. Then we
will create the following rules:
// Rule Implemented-From-Impl
forall<P0..Pn> {
Implemented(TraitRef) :- WC
}
In addition, we will lower all of the impl items.
Lowering impl items
Associated type values
Given an impl that contains:
impl<P0..Pn> Trait<P1..Pn> for P0
where WC_impl
{
type AssocType<Pn+1..Pm> = T;
}
and our where clause WC1
on the trait associated type from above, we
produce the following rule:
// Rule Normalize-From-Impl
forall<P0..Pm> {
forall<Pn+1..Pm> {
Normalize(<P0 as Trait<P1..Pn>>::AssocType<Pn+1..Pm> -> T) :-
Implemented(P0 as Trait) && WC1
}
}
Note that WC_impl
and WC1
both encode where-clauses that the impl can
rely on. (WC_impl
is not used here, because it is implied by
Implemented(P0 as Trait)
.)
Function and constant values
Chalk didn't model functions and constants, but I would eventually
like to treat them exactly like normalization. This presumably
involves adding a new kind of parameter (constant), and then having a
NormalizeValue
domain goal. This is to be written because the
details are a bit up in the air.