Enable operator functions to be referred to by name as, e.g., (+), (+=), etc. Unary/binary ambiguities are resolved via type context. Prefix/postfix unary ambiguities aren't resolved. References to assignment operators produce plain [byref] functions.
Swift SVN r4274
This node represents a type parameter list application in an unresolved expr context. The type checker will use these to explicitly bind type variables of generic types.
Swift SVN r4046
When parsing an expression, if we see the production [[identifier '<']], use the following heuristic to choose whether to parse it as a type list or as an operator expression:
- Speculatively parse the subsequent production as a type parameter list.
- If the parse succeeds, examine the token after the closing '>'. If it is one of the following:
l_paren_following
l_square_following
r_paren
r_square
l_brace
r_brace
comma
semicolon
period
then accept the parse as a type list.
- If the parse fails, or if the type list is not followed by one of those tokens, reject the type list and parse as an operator expression.
This only implements the parsing rule. The type parameters are just dropped on the floor--the AST representation and Sema changes are forthcoming. Encouragingly, no test or library code appears to be broken by this rule.
Swift SVN r4044
Add support to the constraint checker for typechecking UnresolvedSuperMemberRef expressions and constructing SuperMemberRef or SuperCall expressions as appropriate. We’ll also need a GenericSuperMemberRefExpr to refer to properties of generic supertypes, but in the interests of demo expedience I’m leaving that case partially-implemented for now.
Swift SVN r4020
Analyze an expression of the form [<tuple contents>] into a call to T.convertFromArrayLiteral(<tuple contents>) for some T conforming to an ArrayLiteralConvertible protocol. Because of some limitations in the constraint checker and protocol conformance checkers, it currently does an ad-hoc conformance check using member constraints. It also currently fails to typecheck for generic container types, and does not provide a default fallback to 'T[]' if unable to deduce a better type from context.
Swift SVN r3953
Dave noted that he's trying to scrub the parser codebase of wishy-washy 'isAnyLParen' and 'isAnyLBrace' calls by consistently lexing opening bracket tokens correctly to begin with. Since currently only 'super' and 'constructor' need to be lexed like identifiers for expression syntax (and, in the future, 'this' and 'This' when those become keywords), mark them as a special kind of 'identifier keyword' in Tokens.def and roll back some of the changes I made to make parsing other decls support either token.
Swift SVN r3848
Set up AST nodes for 'super.<identifier>', 'super.constructor', and 'super[<expr>]' expressions, and implement parsing for them without any sema or backend support.
Swift SVN r3847
Opening brackets after a keyword have to lex as l_paren_call or l_square_subscript in order for expressions like 'super.constructor()' or 'super[i]' to parse. While we're here, let's move the keyword and punctuator list to a metaprogrammable Tokens.def header too. Update decl and stmt parsers to use 'isAnyLParen' so that, e.g., 'constructor(' and 'constructor (' both work as before.
Swift SVN r3846
The lexer now models tuples, patterns, subscripting, function calls, and
field access robustly. The output tokens are now better named as well:
l_paren and l_paren_call, and l_square and l_square_subscript. It
should be much more clear now which one to use. Also, the use of
l_paren or l_square will not arbitrarily flip flop if the token before
it is a keyword or if the token before it was the trailing ']' of an
attribute list. Similarly, tuples will always cause the lexer to produce
l_paren, regardless if the user typed '((x,y))' or '( (x,y))'.
When we someday add array literals, the right token is now naturally
falling out of the lexer.
Swift SVN r3840
rdar://12315571
Allow a function to be defined with this syntax:
func doThing(a:Thing) withItem(b:Item) -> Result { ... }
This allows the keyword names in the function type (in this case
`(_:Thing, withItem:Item) -> Result`) to differ from the names bound in the
function body (in this case `(a:Thing, b:Item) -> Result`, which allows
for Cocoa-style `verbingNoun` keyword idioms to be used without requiring
those keywords to also be used as awkward variable names. In addition
to modifying the parser, this patch extends the FuncExpr type by replacing
the former `getParamPatterns` accessor with separate `getArgParamPatterns`
and `getBodyParamPatterns`, which retrieve the argument name patterns and
body parameter binding patterns respectively.
Swift SVN r3098
Introduce a '.metatype' form in the syntax and do some basic
type-checking that I probably haven't done right. Change
IR-generation for that and GetMetatypeExpr to use code that
actually honors the dynamic type of an expression.
Swift SVN r3053
static method to call it, to make it more explicit what is happening. Avoid
using TypeLoc::withoutLoc for function definitions; instead, just use an empty
TypeLoc.
Swift SVN r2606
analysis for patterns.
Major changes:
1. We no longer try to compute the types of functions in the parser.
2. The type of a function always matches the type of the argument patterns.
3. Every FuncDecl now has a corresponding FuncExpr; that FuncExpr might not
have a body, though.
4. We now use a new class "ExprHandle" so that both a pattern and a type
can hold a reference to the same expression.
Hopefully this will be a more reasonable foundation for further changes to
how we compute the types of FuncDecls in generics and for the implementation
of type location information.
Swift SVN r2370
and use this information as cues in the language. Right now,
we do not accept things like "-- *i" because the prefix
operator is not correctly right-bound; instead you have to
write "--(*i)". I'm okay with that; I did add a specialized
diagnostic recognizing operator-binary in a place where we're
expecting a potential operator-prefix.
Swift SVN r2161
e.g. "foo is \(i+j)". This implements rdar://11223686
Doug implemented all the hard parts of this. I ripped out support for nested string
literals (i.e. string literals within an interpolated string), which simplified the
approach and defined away some problems with his patch in progress. I plan a few refinements
on top of this basic patch.
Swift SVN r1738
