"expected fn item, found a different fn item" for [(f, "f"), (g, "g")] even though [f, g] infers fine
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
A-coercions
C-feature-request
T-types
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 119k
- Forks
- 16.1k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
I tried this code:
fn a(_: &str) {}
fn b(_: &str) {}
fn main() {
for (f, s) in [(a, "a"), (b, "b")] {
f(s);
}
// workaround
for (f, s) in [a, b].into_iter().zip(["a", "b"]) {
f(s);
}
}
I expected to see this happen: both work
Instead, this happened: latter works, former errors with
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> a.rs:4:31
|
4 | for (f, s) in [(a, "a"), (b, "b")] {
| ^ expected fn item, found a different fn item
|
= note: expected fn item `for<'a> fn(&'a _) {a}`
found fn item `for<'a> fn(&'a _) {b}`
error: aborting due to 1 previous error
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.
Meta
rustc --version --verbose:
rustc 1.87.0 (17067e9ac 2025-05-09)
binary: rustc
commit-hash: 17067e9ac6d7ecb70e50f92c1944e545188d2359
commit-date: 2025-05-09
host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
release: 1.87.0
LLVM version: 20.1.1
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by compiling the minimal reproducer with rustc 1.87.0 and compare the tuple-array case with the zip workaround. Investigate how the compiler treats distinct function items during array type inference; done means the reported case is handled consistently without breaking the working workaround.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100