# Trait resolution (old-style)

This chapter describes the general process of _trait resolution_ and points out
some non-obvious things.

**Note:** This chapter (and its subchapters) describe how the trait
solver **currently** works. However, we are in the process of
designing a new trait solver. If you'd prefer to read about *that*,
see [*this* traits chapter](./index.html).

## Major concepts

Trait resolution is the process of pairing up an impl with each
reference to a trait. So, for example, if there is a generic function like:

```rust,ignore
fn clone_slice<T:Clone>(x: &[T]) -> Vec<T> { ... }
```

and then a call to that function:

```rust,ignore
let v: Vec<isize> = clone_slice(&[1, 2, 3])
```

it is the job of trait resolution to figure out whether there exists an impl of
(in this case) `isize : Clone`.

Note that in some cases, like generic functions, we may not be able to
find a specific impl, but we can figure out that the caller must
provide an impl. For example, consider the body of `clone_slice`:

```rust,ignore
fn clone_slice<T:Clone>(x: &[T]) -> Vec<T> {
    let mut v = Vec::new();
    for e in &x {
        v.push((*e).clone()); // (*)
    }
}
```

The line marked `(*)` is only legal if `T` (the type of `*e`)
implements the `Clone` trait. Naturally, since we don't know what `T`
is, we can't find the specific impl; but based on the bound `T:Clone`,
we can say that there exists an impl which the caller must provide.

We use the term *obligation* to refer to a trait reference in need of
an impl. Basically, the trait resolution system resolves an obligation
by proving that an appropriate impl does exist.

During type checking, we do not store the results of trait selection.
We simply wish to verify that trait selection will succeed. Then
later, at trans time, when we have all concrete types available, we
can repeat the trait selection to choose an actual implementation, which
will then be generated in the output binary.

## Overview

Trait resolution consists of three major parts:

- **Selection**: Deciding how to resolve a specific obligation. For
  example, selection might decide that a specific obligation can be
  resolved by employing an impl which matches the `Self` type, or by using a
  parameter bound (e.g. `T: Trait`). In the case of an impl, selecting one
  obligation can create *nested obligations* because of where clauses
  on the impl itself. It may also require evaluating those nested
  obligations to resolve ambiguities.

- **Fulfillment**: The fulfillment code is what tracks that obligations
  are completely fulfilled. Basically it is a worklist of obligations
  to be selected: once selection is successful, the obligation is
  removed from the worklist and any nested obligations are enqueued.

- **Coherence**: The coherence checks are intended to ensure that there
  are never overlapping impls, where two impls could be used with
  equal precedence.

## Selection

Selection is the process of deciding whether an obligation can be
resolved and, if so, how it is to be resolved (via impl, where clause, etc).
The main interface is the `select()` function, which takes an obligation
and returns a `SelectionResult`. There are three possible outcomes:

- `Ok(Some(selection))` – yes, the obligation can be resolved, and
  `selection` indicates how. If the impl was resolved via an impl,
  then `selection` may also indicate nested obligations that are required
  by the impl.

- `Ok(None)` – we are not yet sure whether the obligation can be
  resolved or not. This happens most commonly when the obligation
  contains unbound type variables.

- `Err(err)` – the obligation definitely cannot be resolved due to a
  type error or because there are no impls that could possibly apply.

The basic algorithm for selection is broken into two big phases:
candidate assembly and confirmation.

Note that because of how lifetime inference works, it is not possible to
give back immediate feedback as to whether a unification or subtype
relationship between lifetimes holds or not. Therefore, lifetime
matching is *not* considered during selection. This is reflected in
the fact that subregion assignment is infallible. This may yield
lifetime constraints that will later be found to be in error (in
contrast, the non-lifetime-constraints have already been checked
during selection and can never cause an error, though naturally they
may lead to other errors downstream).

### Candidate assembly

Searches for impls/where-clauses/etc that might
possibly be used to satisfy the obligation. Each of those is called
a candidate. To avoid ambiguity, we want to find exactly one
candidate that is definitively applicable. In some cases, we may not
know whether an impl/where-clause applies or not – this occurs when
the obligation contains unbound inference variables.

The subroutines that decide whether a particular impl/where-clause/etc
applies to a particular obligation are collectively referred to as the
process of _matching_. At the moment, this amounts to
unifying the `Self` types, but in the future we may also recursively
consider some of the nested obligations, in the case of an impl.

**TODO**: what does "unifying the `Self` types" mean? The `Self` of the
obligation with that of an impl?

The basic idea for candidate assembly is to do a first pass in which
we identify all possible candidates. During this pass, all that we do
is try and unify the type parameters. (In particular, we ignore any
nested where clauses.) Presuming that this unification succeeds, the
impl is added as a candidate.

Once this first pass is done, we can examine the set of candidates. If
it is a singleton set, then we are done: this is the only impl in
scope that could possibly apply. Otherwise, we can winnow down the set
of candidates by using where clauses and other conditions. If this
reduced set yields a single, unambiguous entry, we're good to go,
otherwise the result is considered ambiguous.

#### The basic process: Inferring based on the impls we see

This process is easier if we work through some examples. Consider
the following trait:

```rust,ignore
trait Convert<Target> {
    fn convert(&self) -> Target;
}
```

This trait just has one method. It's about as simple as it gets. It
converts from the (implicit) `Self` type to the `Target` type. If we
wanted to permit conversion between `isize` and `usize`, we might
implement `Convert` like so:

```rust,ignore
impl Convert<usize> for isize { ... } // isize -> usize
impl Convert<isize> for usize { ... } // usize -> isize
```

Now imagine there is some code like the following:

```rust,ignore
let x: isize = ...;
let y = x.convert();
```

The call to convert will generate a trait reference `Convert<$Y> for
isize`, where `$Y` is the type variable representing the type of
`y`. Of the two impls we can see, the only one that matches is
`Convert<usize> for isize`. Therefore, we can
select this impl, which will cause the type of `$Y` to be unified to
`usize`. (Note that while assembling candidates, we do the initial
unifications in a transaction, so that they don't affect one another.)

**TODO**: The example says we can "select" the impl, but this section is
talking specifically about candidate assembly. Does this mean we can sometimes
skip confirmation? Or is this poor wording?
**TODO**: Is the unification of `$Y` part of trait resolution or type
inference? Or is this not the same type of "inference variable" as in type
inference?

#### Winnowing: Resolving ambiguities

But what happens if there are multiple impls where all the types
unify? Consider this example:

```rust,ignore
trait Get {
    fn get(&self) -> Self;
}

impl<T:Copy> Get for T {
    fn get(&self) -> T { *self }
}

impl<T:Get> Get for Box<T> {
    fn get(&self) -> Box<T> { Box::new(get_it(&**self)) }
}
```

What happens when we invoke `get_it(&Box::new(1_u16))`, for example? In this
case, the `Self` type is `Box<u16>` – that unifies with both impls,
because the first applies to all types `T`, and the second to all
`Box<T>`. In order for this to be unambiguous, the compiler does a *winnowing*
pass that considers `where` clauses
and attempts to remove candidates. In this case, the first impl only
applies if `Box<u16> : Copy`, which doesn't hold. After winnowing,
then, we are left with just one candidate, so we can proceed.

#### `where` clauses

Besides an impl, the other major way to resolve an obligation is via a
where clause. The selection process is always given a [parameter
environment] which contains a list of where clauses, which are
basically obligations that we can assume are satisfiable. We will iterate
over that list and check whether our current obligation can be found
in that list. If so, it is considered satisfied. More precisely, we
want to check whether there is a where-clause obligation that is for
the same trait (or some subtrait) and which can match against the obligation.

[parameter environment]: ../param_env.html

Consider this simple example:

```rust,ignore
trait A1 {
    fn do_a1(&self);
}
trait A2 : A1 { ... }

trait B {
    fn do_b(&self);
}

fn foo<X:A2+B>(x: X) {
    x.do_a1(); // (*)
    x.do_b();  // (#)
}
```

In the body of `foo`, clearly we can use methods of `A1`, `A2`, or `B`
on variable `x`. The line marked `(*)` will incur an obligation `X: A1`,
while the line marked `(#)` will incur an obligation `X: B`. Meanwhile,
the parameter environment will contain two where-clauses: `X : A2` and `X : B`.
For each obligation, then, we search this list of where-clauses. The
obligation `X: B` trivially matches against the where-clause `X: B`.
To resolve an obligation `X:A1`, we would note that `X:A2` implies that `X:A1`.

### Confirmation

_Confirmation_ unifies the output type parameters of the trait with the
values found in the obligation, possibly yielding a type error.

Suppose we have the following variation of the `Convert` example in the
previous section:

```rust,ignore
trait Convert<Target> {
    fn convert(&self) -> Target;
}

impl Convert<usize> for isize { ... } // isize -> usize
impl Convert<isize> for usize { ... } // usize -> isize

let x: isize = ...;
let y: char = x.convert(); // NOTE: `y: char` now!
```

Confirmation is where an error would be reported because the impl specified
that `Target` would be `usize`, but the obligation reported `char`. Hence the
result of selection would be an error.

Note that the candidate impl is chosen based on the `Self` type, but
confirmation is done based on (in this case) the `Target` type parameter.

### Selection during translation

As mentioned above, during type checking, we do not store the results of trait
selection. At trans time, we repeat the trait selection to choose a particular
impl for each method call. In this second selection, we do not consider any
where-clauses to be in scope because we know that each resolution will resolve
to a particular impl.

One interesting twist has to do with nested obligations. In general, in trans,
we only need to do a "shallow" selection for an obligation. That is, we wish to
identify which impl applies, but we do not (yet) need to decide how to select
any nested obligations. Nonetheless, we *do* currently do a complete resolution,
and that is because it can sometimes inform the results of type inference.
That is, we do not have the full substitutions in terms of the type variables
of the impl available to us, so we must run trait selection to figure
everything out.

**TODO**: is this still talking about trans?

Here is an example:

```rust,ignore
trait Foo { ... }
impl<U, T:Bar<U>> Foo for Vec<T> { ... }

impl Bar<usize> for isize { ... }
```

After one shallow round of selection for an obligation like `Vec<isize>
: Foo`, we would know which impl we want, and we would know that
`T=isize`, but we do not know the type of `U`.  We must select the
nested obligation `isize : Bar<U>` to find out that `U=usize`.

It would be good to only do *just as much* nested resolution as
necessary. Currently, though, we just do a full resolution.
