Rollup merge of #147109 - BoxyUwU:rename_concrete_opaques, r=lcnr

Rename various "concrete opaque type" things to say "hidden type"

r? lcnr

I've found "concrete opaque type" terminology to be somewhat confusing as in conversation and when explaining opaque type stuff to people I always just talk about things in terms of hidden types. Also the hidden types of opaques are very much not *concrete* in the same sense that a type without any generic parameters is concrete which is an unfortunate overlap in terminology.

I've tried to update comments to also stop referring to things as concrete opaque types but this is mostly best effort as it difficult to find all such cases amongst the massive amounts of uses of "concrete" or "hidden" across the whole compiler.

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/compiler/rustc_pattern_analysis/src/rustc.rs b/compiler/rustc_pattern_analysis/src/rustc.rs
index d9f8085083e..0652461e975 100644
--- a/compiler/rustc_pattern_analysis/src/rustc.rs
+++ b/compiler/rustc_pattern_analysis/src/rustc.rs
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ impl<'p, 'tcx: 'p> fmt::Debug for RustcPatCtxt<'p, 'tcx> {
 impl<'p, 'tcx: 'p> RustcPatCtxt<'p, 'tcx> {
     /// Type inference occasionally gives us opaque types in places where corresponding patterns
     /// have more specific types. To avoid inconsistencies as well as detect opaque uninhabited
-    /// types, we use the corresponding concrete type if possible.
+    /// types, we use the corresponding hidden type if possible.
     // FIXME(#132279): This will be unnecessary once we have a TypingMode which supports revealing
     // opaque types defined in a body.
     #[inline]
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ impl<'p, 'tcx: 'p> RustcPatCtxt<'p, 'tcx> {
     /// know it.
     fn reveal_opaque_key(&self, key: OpaqueTypeKey<'tcx>) -> Option<Ty<'tcx>> {
         self.typeck_results
-            .concrete_opaque_types
+            .hidden_types
             .get(&key.def_id)
             .map(|x| ty::EarlyBinder::bind(x.ty).instantiate(self.tcx, key.args))
     }