Merge branch 'shadowing' of https://github.com/nikomatsakis/rfcs into nikomatsakis-shadowing

text/0459-disallow-shadowing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+- Start Date: 2014-11-29
+- RFC PR: #459
+- Rust Issue: [19390](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19390)
+
+# Summary
+
+Disallow type/lifetime parameter shadowing.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Today we allow type and lifetime parameters to be shadowed. This is a
+common source of bugs as well as confusing errors. An example of such a confusing case is:
+
+```rust
+struct Foo<'a> {
+    x: &'a int
+}
+
+impl<'a> Foo<'a> {
+    fn set<'a>(&mut self, v: &'a int) {
+        self.x = v;
+    }
+}
+
+fn main() { }
+```
+
+In this example, the lifetime parameter `'a` is shadowed on the method, leading to two
+logically distinct lifetime parameters with the same name. This then leads to the error
+message:
+
+    mismatched types: expected `&'a int`, found `&'a int` (lifetime mismatch)
+    
+which is obviously completely unhelpful.
+
+Similar errors can occur with type parameters:
+
+```rust
+struct Foo<T> {
+    x: T
+}
+
+impl<T> Foo<T> {
+    fn set<T>(&mut self, v: T) {
+        self.x = v;
+    }
+}
+
+fn main() { }
+```
+
+Compiling this program yields:
+
+    mismatched types: expected `T`, found `T` (expected type parameter, found a different type parameter)
+
+Here the error message was improved by [a recent PR][pr], but this is
+still a somewhat confusing situation.
+
+Anecdotally, this kind of accidental shadowing is fairly frequent
+occurrence.  It recently arose on [this discuss thread][dt], for
+example.
+    
+[dt]: http://discuss.rust-lang.org/t/confused-by-lifetime-error-messages-tell-me-about-it/358/41?u=nikomatsakis    
+[pr]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/18264
+    
+# Detailed design
+
+Disallow shadowed type/lifetime parameter declarations. An error would
+be reported by the resolve/resolve-lifetime passes in the compiler and
+hence fairly early in the pipeline.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+We otherwise allow shadowing, so it is inconsistent.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+We could use a lint instead. However, we'd want to ensure that the
+lint error messages were printed *before* type-checking begins. We
+could do this, perhaps, by running the lint printing pass multiple
+times. This might be useful in any case as the placement of lints in
+the compiler pipeline has proven problematic before.
+
+We could also attempt to improve the error messages. Doing so for
+lifetimes is definitely important in any case, but also somewhat
+tricky due to the extensive inference. It is usually easier and more
+reliable to help avoid the error in the first place.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+None.