Mention Both HRTB and Generic Lifetime Param in E0637 documentation

[veera-sivarajan]

The compiler (rustc 1.77.0) error for and_without_explicit_lifetime() in the erroneous code example suggests using a HRTB. But, the corrected example uses an explicit lifetime parameter.

This PR fixes it so that the documentation and the compiler suggestion for error code E0637 are consistent with each other.

[rustbot]

r? @TaKO8Ki

rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

[fmease]

The compiler (rustc 1.77.0) error for and_without_explicit_lifetime() in the erroneous code example suggests using a HRTB.

That's true but that particular suggestion is not super smart and has many issues (that are currently being worked on though) like #123713, #122714 or #122025. Therefore, it shouldn't be taken as a source of absolute truth.

For example, rustc currently suggests for<'a> ... 'a here:

fn and_without_explicit_lifetime<T>()
where
    T: Iterator<Item = &u32>,
{
}

which is not correct (#122025).

[fmease]

As a middle ground instead of replacing the <'a, T>-suggestion with the for<'a> one, could we maybe have both?

@rustbot author
r? fmease

[veera-sivarajan]

Sure, mentioning both sounds good to me.

I've also fixed the grammar in the first line: used on illegal place to used in an illegal place.

[veera-sivarajan]

@rustbot ready

[fmease]

Thanks, very nice! Could you squash the commits? Then I will approve.

[fmease]

@bors r+ rollup

[bors]

📌 Commit 26ed429 has been approved by fmease

It is now in the queue for this repository.