Author "Return Type Notation MVP: Call for Testing!"

posts/inside-rust/2024-09-23-rtn-call-for-testing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+---
+layout: post
+title: "Return Type Notation MVP: Call for Testing!"
+author: Michael Goulet
+team: The Async Working Group <https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/wgs/wg-async>
+---
+
+The async working group is excited to announce that [RFC 3654] return type notation (RTN) is ready for testing. In this post, we want to briefly describe the feature and announce a call for testing on nightly Rust.
+
+## The backstory
+
+Rust 1.75 [stabilized](https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/12/21/async-fn-rpit-in-traits.html) async fn in traits (AFIT) and return-position impl Trait in traits (RPITIT). These desugar to anonymous generic associated types (GATs). However, unlike GATs, users of these types cannot use `where` clauses to further restrict these return types. This is known as the ["send bound"](https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2023/02/01/async-trait-send-bounds-part-1-intro/) problem, since it often affects `Send` bounds on futures in the async ecosystem.
+
+### An example
+
+Consider a trait `Foo` with a `method` that returns a type of `impl Future<Output = ()>`. We want to write a function that calls `method` and spawns the future on another thread:
+
+```rust
+fn spawn<T>(f: impl Future<Output = T> + Send + 'static) {}
+
+trait Foo {
+    fn method() -> impl Future<Output = ()>; // <-- RPITIT.
+}
+
+fn needs_sendable_future<T: Foo>()
+where
+    // How do we further restrict `T::method()` to be `Send + 'static`?
+{
+    spawn(T::method());
+    //~^ ERROR: `impl Future<Output = ()>` is not `Send`!
+}
+```
+
+Specifically, we may not want to restrict the *declaration* of `Foo`, since changing it in the declaration would restrict *all* implementations of `Foo`.
+
+```rust
+trait Foo {
+    fn method() -> impl Future<Output = ()> + Send + 'static;
+    //                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+    //                                      Not what we want.
+}
+```
+
+So, on stable Rust, we have no way of expressing this restriction when using AFIT or RPITIT. In contrast, we can express this today if we were to use a GAT directly:
+
+```rust
+trait Foo {
+    type MethodFuture: Future<Output = ()>;
+    fn method() -> Self::MethodFuture;
+}
+
+fn needs_sendable_future<T: Foo>()
+where
+    // We can restrict this to only implementors of `Foo`
+    // whose `MethodFuture` is `Send + 'static`, so we can
+    // call `spawn` below:
+    T::MethodFuture: Send + 'static
+{
+    spawn(T::method());
+}
+```
+
+However, using GATs means that implementors of `Foo` have to write out the return type explicitly, `type MethodFuture = ...`, which doesn't ([yet](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/120700)) work if we have an anonymous, unnameable `Future` type!
+
+## The solution
+
+In [RFC 3654] we introduced return type notation (RTN). This will allow us to write `where` clause bounds that restrict the return types of functions and methods that use async fn in traits (AFIT) and return-position impl Trait in traits (RPITIT). Extending the example above, RTN lets us write:
+
+```rust
+fn needs_sendable_future<T: Foo>()
+where
+    T::method(..): Send + 'static // ✨
+{
+    spawn(T::method());
+    //~^ Works!
+}
+```
+
+## Restrictions
+
+Currently, RTN is only allowed for trait associated functions and methods with lifetime generics (not const or type generics) that use:
+
+* async fn in traits (AFIT)
+* return-position impl Trait in traits (RPITIT) where the impl Trait is the outermost return type, i.e. `-> impl Trait`, but not `-> Box<impl Trait>`
+
+These restrictions are described in further detail in [RFC 3654].
+
+## How do I help?
+
+We'd love for you to test out this feature on the latest Rust nightly compiler[^nightly].
+
+[^nightly]: Make sure to run `rustup update nightly` or however manage your Rust releases, since the feature is very new and is still unstable!
+
+Specifically, we'd like for you to identify traits where you're unnecessarily restricting your trait definitions with `+ Send` or similar bounds:
+
+```rust
+// Instead of writing a trait like:
+
+trait Foo {
+    fn method() -> impl Future<Output = ()> + Send + 'static;
+}
+
+// Write this:
+
+trait Foo {
+    async fn method();
+}
+
+// And then at the call site, add:
+
+fn use_foo<T: Foo>()
+where
+    T::method(..): Send + 'static,
+{}
+```
+
+Similarly, we'd like for you to identify traits that currently are returning GATs for the same reason:
+
+```rust
+// Instead of writing this in the trait and call site:
+
+trait Foo {
+    type MethodFuture: Future<Output = ()>;
+    fn method() -> Self::MethodFuture;
+}
+
+fn use_foo<T: Foo>()
+where
+    T::MethodFuture: Send + 'static,
+{}
+
+// Write this:
+
+trait Foo {
+    async fn method();
+}
+
+fn use_foo<T: Foo>()
+where
+    T::method(..): Send + 'static,
+{}
+```
+
+Note, however, that we don't yet support RTN in type position. So while, with the first version, you can write:
+
+```rust
+struct Bar<T: Foo> {
+    field: T::MethodFuture,
+}
+```
+
+You can't yet, with the second version, write:
+
+```rust
+struct Bar<T: Foo> {
+    field: T::method(..),
+}
+```
+
+We'd be interested in hearing about any places where you would run into this limitation.
+
+We're excited for RTN to make it easier to use async fn in traits (AFIT) in `Send`-bound-heavy async Rust ecosystems.
+
+As always, take a look at the [RFC][RFC 3654] itself for a detailed explanation for why we settled on this design, in particular the [frequently-asked questions and rationale](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3654-return-type-notation.html#rationale-and-alternatives).
+
+[RFC 3654]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3654-return-type-notation.html
+[RFC 3425]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3425-return-position-impl-trait-in-traits.html