Why should this be such a bad anti pattern? Sure, a function might not need to work on the entire data model, but with pass by reference, does it matter that much? I dont see big negatives by using struct args, possibly wrapped in some typestate.

On the other hand, doesnt seprating args and typestate defeat the purpose? Since they can now be constructed separately.

It's because I use Ticket<T> in situations where I need to remember (force other users to use) a sequence of functions that take arguments not necessarily constructed by others.

async fn write_buffer(buf: &mut [u8]) -> Ticket<BufferWritten>

//Best that it it's own function for readability

async fn complex_counter_logic(ctr: Arc<AtomicUsize>, ticket: Ticket<BufferWritten>) -> Ticket<ComplexCounterLogic>

//One could also place all the data in a giant struct and move that across all functions but that eventually leads to struct bloat unless we use an explicit state machine, in which case type state is better

I think my point is that types and “typestate” do not need to be two separate things. For example, in the Lua API for C, one obviously requires a Lua context handle in order to perform any other operations, so the handle must be obtained first, by calling the context initializer function. There is no need for an extra “typestate” parameter since the dependency is explicit and enforced.