#[derive(Default)] on enum variants with fields

Support the following:

```rust
enum Foo {
    #[default]
    Bar {
        x: Option<i32>,
        y: Option<i32>,
    },
    Baz,
}
```

text/0000-derive-default-enum-with-fields.md

@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+- Feature Name: `derive-default-enum-with-fields`
+- Start Date: 2024-08-25
+- RFC PR: [rust-lang/rfcs#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/0000)
+- Rust Issue: [rust-lang/rust#0000](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/0000)
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+Allow `#[derive(Default)]` on `enum` variants with data.
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[default]
+    Bar {
+        x: Option<i32>,
+        y: Option<i32>,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```
+
+Previously, only unit enum variants were allowed to derive `Default`, by marking
+them with `#[default]`. This feature extens this support to tuple and struct
+enum variants with fields when they all implement `Default`. By extension this
+also means that tuple and struct enum variants with no fields are also suitable
+to be marked with `#[default]`.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+Currently, `#[derive(Default)]` is not usable on `enum` variants with data. To
+rectify this situation, we expand the existing `#[default]` attribute
+implementation to support tuple and struct variants.
+
+This allows you to use #[derive(Default)] on enums wherefore you can now write:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+enum Padding {
+    #[default]
+    Space {
+        n: i32,
+    },
+    None,
+}
+```
+
+This feature allows for more cases where `Default` can be derived, instead of
+explicitly implemented. This reduces the verbosity of Rust codebases.
+
+# Guide-level explanation
+[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
+
+In the same way that `struct`s can be annotated with `#[derive(Default)]`:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+struct Bar {
+    x: Option<i32>,
+    y: Option<i32>,
+}
+```
+
+which expands to:
+
+```rust
+impl Default for Bar {
+    fn default() -> Bar {
+        Bar {
+            x: Default::default(),
+            y: Default::default(),
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+The same annotation on an `enum` with a variant annotated with `#[default]`:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[default]
+    Bar {
+        x: Option<i32>,
+        y: Option<i32>,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```
+
+expands to:
+
+```rust
+impl Default for Foo {
+    fn default() -> Foo {
+        Foo::Bar {
+            x: Default::default(),
+            y: Default::default(),
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Because the expanded code calls `Default::default()`, if the fields do not
+implement `Default` the compiler will emit an appropriate error pointing at the
+field that doesn't meet its requirement.
+
+```
+error[E0277]: the trait bound `S: Default` is not satisfied
+ --> src/main.rs:4:5
+  |
+2 | #[derive(Default)]
+  |          ------- in this derive macro expansion
+3 | enum Foo {
+3 |     Bar {
+4 |         x: S,
+  |         ^^^^ the trait `Default` is not implemented for `S`
+  |
+  = note: this error originates in the derive macro `Default` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
+help: consider annotating `S` with `#[derive(Default)]`
+  |
+1 + #[derive(Default)]
+2 | struct S;
+  |
+```
+
+# Reference-level explanation
+[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
+
+[`default_enum_substructure`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6bb4656ee2ad88425917e3d4ad7ec11a033f181c/compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/deriving/default.rs#L96C4-L96C29
+
+[`extract_default_variant`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6bb4656ee2ad88425917e3d4ad7ec11a033f181c/compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/deriving/default.rs#L154C4-L154C27
+
+[`default_struct_substructure`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6bb4656ee2ad88425917e3d4ad7ec11a033f181c/compiler/rustc_builtin_macros/src/deriving/default.rs#L63C4-L63C31
+
+In `rustc_builtin_macros/src/deriving/default.rs`, we change
+[`extract_default_variant`] to not filter *only* on `VariantData::Unit`, and
+[`default_enum_substructure`] to expand the `impl` in a similar way to
+[`default_struct_substructure`].
+
+[RFC-3107]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3107-derive-default-enum.html.
+
+This expands on [RFC-3107]. No other changes are needed.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+[perfect derives]: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2022/04/12/implied-bounds-and-perfect-derive/
+
+The usual drawback of increasing the complexity of the language applies. However, the degree to which complexity is increased is not substantial.
+
+[The same](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/26925) issue highlighted on
+[RFC-3107] of current `#[derive(Default)]` on `struct`s producing `impl`s with
+incorrect bounds (non-[perfect derives]) applies to this proposal as well.
+
+# Rationale and alternatives
+[rationale-and-alternatives]: #rationale-and-alternatives
+
+[`derivative`]: https://crates.io/crates/derivative
+
+[`smart-default`]: https://crates.io/crates/smart-default
+
+As shown by the existence of [`derivative`] and [`smart-default`], there is a
+desire to fill this perceived gap in flexibility that the built-in
+`#[derive(Default)]` support has. We can do nothing and let the ecosystem sort
+this gap out.
+
+
+# Prior art
+[prior-art]: #prior-art
+
+## Procedural macros
+
+There are a number of crates which to varying degrees afford macros for default field values and
+associated facilities.
+
+
+### `#[derive(Derivative)]`
+
+[`derivative`]: https://crates.io/crates/derivative
+
+The crate [`derivative`] provides the `#[derivative(Default)]` attribute. With it, you may write:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Derivative)]
+#[derivative(Default)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[derivative(Default)]
+    Bar {
+        value: Option<i32>,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```
+
+Contrast this with the equivalent in the style of this RFC:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[default]
+    Bar {
+        value: Option<i32>,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```
+
+Like in this RFC, `derivative` allows you to derive `Default` for `enum`s. The
+syntax used in the macro is `#[derivative(Default)]` whereas the RFC provides
+uses the already existing `#[default]` annotation.
+
+### `#[derive(SmartDefault)]`
+
+[`smart-default`]: https://crates.io/crates/smart-default
+
+The [`smart-default`] provides `#[derive(SmartDefault)]` custom derive macro. It functions similarly
+to `derivative` but is specialized for the `Default` trait. With it, you can write:
+
+```rust
+#[derive(SmartDefault)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[default]
+    Bar {
+        value: Option<i32>,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```
+
+- There is no trait `SmartDefault` even though it is being derived. This works because
+  `#[proc_macro_derive(SmartDefault)]` is in fact not tied to any trait. That `#[derive(Serialize)]`
+  refers to the same trait as the name of the macro is from the perspective of the language's static
+  semantics entirely coincidental.
+
+  However, for users who aren't aware of this, it may seem strange that `SmartDefault` should derive
+  for the `Default` trait.
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions
+
+- Should we wait until [perfect derives] are addressed first?
+- Should `#[default]` be allowed on tuple and struct enum variants with no fields?
+
+# Future possibilities
+[future-possibilities]: #future-possibilities
+
+## Overriding default values
+
+[RFC-3681]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681
+
+[RFC-3681] already proposes supporting the definition of struct and struct enum
+variant field default values, that can be used by `#[derive(Default)]` to
+override the use of `Default::default()`. These two RFCs interact nicely with
+each other.
+
+```rust
+#[derive(Default)]
+enum Foo {
+    #[default]
+    Bar {
+        value: i32 = 42,
+    },
+    Baz,
+}
+```