Repository: rust
Issue: E0195 diagnostic should take into account GATs, etc
Labels: A-diagnostics,T-compiler

### Code

```Rust
pub trait Trait {
    type Gat<'a>;
    fn example(self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) -> Self::Gat<'_>;
}

impl Trait for () {
    type Gat<'a> = ();
    fn example(self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) {}
}
```

### Current output

```Shell
error[E0195]: lifetime parameters or bounds on method `example` do not match the trait declaration
 --> <source>:8:15
  |
3 |     fn example(self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) -> Self::Gat<'_>;
  |               - lifetimes in impl do not match this method in trait
...
8 |     fn example(self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) {}
  |               ^ lifetimes do not match method in trait
```

### Desired output

```Shell
error[E0195]: lifetime parameters or bounds on method `example` do not match the trait declaration
 --> <source>:8:15
  |
3 |     fn example(self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) -> Self::Gat<'_>;
  |                                   --                --
  |         lifetimes in impl do not match this method in trait
...
8 |     fn example(self, _: Gat<'_>) {}
  |                             --
  |         lifetimes do not match method in trait
  |

note: The lifetime in the trait does not constrain the lifetime parameter,
      but the lifetime in the implementation signature is constrained

hint: Make the lifetime in the implementation unconstrained by mentioning
      the lifetime in an explicit bound:

    fn example<'a:'a>(self, _: Self::Gat<'a>) {}
              +++++++                    ~~
```

### Rationale and extra context

Context: #109476 and #87803.  Those are filed as bugs, so I'm filing this diagnostic issue separately.  It's plausible this will become moot if those issues are resolved, but it's not certain that will happen (or that it will happen soon).

When I encountered this, it took me awhile to figure out that E0195 was really about late-vs-early lifetimes parameters.  Only when I figured that out did the error make sense.  Late-vs-early lifetime parameters are niche knowledge, so I'm not entirely sure how to phrase the error message; it needs to probably spell out a workaround, as it's not obvious.

The current phrasing of E0195 makes sense when lifetime parameters are early bound due to appearing in explicit bounds.  However, lifetime parameters can also become early bound implicitly/invisibly, such as in the example.  There are similar cases (see #87803) when the return type is an RPIT/RPITIT (`-> impl Trait`) -- in which case the lifetime is early bound due to appearing in the implicit `use<..>` bounds.  

Also in those cases, exactly matching the signature from the trait is not always an option or desirable.  For example, when using refinement and/or precise capturing -- i.e. intentionally removing a lifetime from the return type in order to provide more functionality than the trait requires.

So for example while `-> Self::Gat<'_>` would be a usable suggestion for the code at the top of this issue, it is not a usable suggestion here:
```rust
pub trait Trait {
    type Gat<'a>;
    fn example(&self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) -> impl Sized;
}

impl Trait for () {
    type Gat<'a> = &'a str;
    #[allow(refining_impl_trait)]
    fn example(&self, _: Self::Gat<'_>) -> i32 { 0 }
}
```


### Other cases

Being explicit about lifetimes doesn't improve things; the span highlighted has an "Expected `X` found `X`" flavor.

```Rust
3 |     fn example<'a, 'b>(&'a self, _: Self::Gat<'b>) -> Self::Gat<'b>;
  |               -------- lifetimes in impl do not match this method in trait
...
8 |     fn example<'a, 'b>(&'a self, _: Self::Gat<'b>) {}
  |               ^^^^^^^^ lifetimes do not match method in trait
```

### Rust Version

```Shell
Rust Playground
Build using the Stable version: 1.84.0
```

### Anything else?

_No response_