Anonymous/placeholder lifetime "'_".

text/0000-anon-lifetime.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+- Feature Name: anon_lifetime
+- Start Date: 2015-06-26
+- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
+- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
+
+# Summary
+
+Allow using an undeclared '_ wherever an explicit lifetime can be used, but is
+optional, such as function argument/return types and any path inside a function.
+
+# Motivation
+
+During the addition of 'tcx in the compiler (denoting the lifetime of the
+arenas used to allocate all the type-system information in the compiler,
+via the type context aka `ty::ctxt` aka `tcx`), I had attempted to replace
+`&'a ty::ctxt<'tcx>` with a clean `TyCx<'a, 'tcx>` wrapper.
+When both `'a` and `'tcx` are either present or missing, it works very well,
+but the common case is `&ty::ctxt<'tcx>`, which cannot be represented by
+`TyCx<'a, 'tcx>` without adding a new explicit lifetime parameter (`'a`)
+to the appropriate function or impl block.
+
+I've recently done this as part of rust-lang/rust#26575, but it wasn't easy
+or pretty and any attempts at adding another lifetime to `TyCx` (necessary
+for splitting type contexts for performance and possibly parallelism in the
+future) would result in more noise at almost every use site of `TyCx`.
+
+# Detailed design
+
+In `resolve_lifetime`: if the lifetime to be resolved matches "'_", store
+`DefAnonRegion` as the resolution result.
+Small caveat: this check has to be done only if the lifetime has not been
+already resolved, because `'_` is a legal lifetime in stable Rust, e.g.:
+```rust
+fn foo<'a, T>(xs: &'_ [T]) -> &'_ T { &xs[0] }
+```
+
+In `typeck::astconv`: if a lifetime has been resolved to `DefAnonRegion`,
+return the same region that would be used for `'a` if omitted in `&'a T`.
+
+Example:
+```rust
+struct Context<'a, 'left: 'a, 'right: 'a> {
+    left: &'a Inner<'left>,
+    right: &'a Inner<'right>,
+}
+fn left<'a, 'left>(cx: Context<'a, 'left, '_>) -> &'a Inner<'left> {
+    cx.left
+}
+fn right<'a, 'right>(cx: Context<'a, '_, 'right>) -> &'a Inner<'right> {
+    cx.left
+}
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+It might be confusing that `'_` *only* has special semantics attached to it
+if it's not declared. It's possible `'_` shouldn't have ever made it into
+stable Rust, and it could be removed as no uses are expected in the wild.
+It could also be linted against - or the new semantics could be opt-in even
+in stable Rust, if we add a mechanism for that.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+Do nothing and suffer the pain of a few hundred unnecessary explicit lifetimes.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+
+What to do with the existing `'_`?
+Can a feature-gated implementation be merged if it's not observable in stable?