We accepted unnamed closure parameters if the type was an array literal, dictionary literal, tuple or function (because the `[` or `(` starting the type was sufficient to disambiguate the type from the parameter’s name). This was never an accepted syntax and we should disallow it.
And adjust contextual parameter modifier parsing in general to be more
properly contextual, so we don't have to reserve `__shared` or `__owned`,
or their successor spellings, as argument labels anymore.
* diagnostic when a closure parameter is declared with type sugar
* Use a test that was already commmited for SR-11724
i
* Use isa<T> instead of asking for the kind directly
* Fix nit: Remove a whitespace
When SE-110 was being implemented, we accidentally began to accept
closure parameter declarations that had no associated parameter names,
e.g.
foo { ([Int]) in /**/ }
This syntax has never been sanctioned by any version of Swift and should
be banned. However, the change was made long enough ago and there are
enough clients relying on this, that we cannot accept the source break
at the moment. For now, add a bit to ParamDecl that marks a parameter
as destructured, and back out setting the invalid bit on the type repr
for these kinds of declarations.
To prevent further spread of this syntax, stub in a warning that offers
to insert an anonymous parameter.
Resolves part of rdar://56673657 and improves QoI for errors like
rdar://56911630
In Swift, wrapping the type of a function parameter in parentheses
never changes its meaning. By this logic,
func foo(x: (inout Int))
should be equivalent to
func foo(x: inout Int)
This worked in Swift 4.1 but regressed when the new function type
representation was introduced.
The verifier asserts that declarations whose interface type contains an error
are invalid, so let's just mark them invalid when we set the interface type,
instead of needlessly duplicating this logic all over the declaration checker.
Swift 3 supported limited argument destructuring when it comes to
declaring (trailing) closures. Such behavior has been changed by
SE-0110. This patch aims to provide better error message as well
as fix-it (if structure of the expected and actual arguments matches)
to make the migration easier and disambiguate some of the common
mistakes.
Resolves: SR-4738, SR-4745, rdar://problem/31892961.
We can't reliably decide in the parser if a type was forgotten or a
wrong type was meant to be a type (e.g. `let x: class MyClass`).
This patch applies a heuristic that the parameter was most likely
forgotten if the next character is a closing bracket or a semantic
separator.
This catches the most common cases of function parameters and variable
declarations that are immediately initialised.
This fixes SR-4785.
* Removed `parseConstructorArguments()`, unified with
`parseSingleParameterClause()`.
* Use `parseSingleParameterClause()` from `parseFunctionSignature()`, so
that we can share the recovery code.
* Removed `isFirstParameterClause` parameter from `mapParsedParameters`,
because it's predictable from `paramContext`.
`InParam` was not used at all.
`StopAtTypeAttributes`
As far as I understand, this option *was* merely for improving diagnostic QoI
for declarations like:
func foo(@typeattr Arg) {}
to fix-it to:
func foo(_: @typeattr Arg) {}
But, this causes the very loudy diagnostics for misplaced type attributes.
For example, on:
func foo(@convention(block) x: () -> CInt) {}
test.swift:1:10: error: expected parameter name followed by ':'
test.swift:1:10: error: expected ',' separator
test.swift:1:10: error: expected ')' in parameter
test.swift:1:9: note: to match this opening '('
test.swift:1:10: error: consecutive statements on a line must be separated by ';'
test.swift:1:11: error: attribute can only be applied to types, not declarations
test.swift:1:21: error: expected declaration
test.swift:1:44: error: statement cannot begin with a closure expression
test.swift:1:44: note: explicitly discard the result of the closure by assigning to '_'
test.swift:1:44: error: braced block of statements is an unused closure
test.swift:1:6: error: expected '{' in body of function declaration
test.swift:1:44: error: expression resolves to an unused function
Now, we emit more accurate diagnostic:
test.swift:1:11: error: attribute can only be applied to types, not declarations
func foo(@convention(block) x: () -> CInt) {}
^
Note that This causes small regression in diagnostics for bare type parameter
like `func foo(@convention(c) () -> CInt) {}`:
Before:
test.swift:1:10: error: unnamed parameters must be written with the empty name '_'
func foo(@convention(block) () -> CInt) {}
^
_:
Now:
test.swift:1:11: error: attribute can only be applied to types, not declarations
func foo(@convention(block) () -> CInt) {}
^
test.swift:1:29: error: unnamed parameters must be written with the empty name '_'
func foo(@convention(block) () -> CInt) {}
^
_:
If we found any error in a list, in most cases, we cannot expect that the
following tokens could construct a valid element. Skip them, instead of trying
to parse them as the next element. This significally reduces bogus diagnostics.
Bailout if seeing tok::eof or token that can never start a element, after
parsing an element. This silences superfluous "expected ',' separator" error,
or misleading expected declaration error. What we should emit is
"expected ')' in expression list, or "expected '}' in struct".
When replace something with a punctuator, we often prefer adding spaces around it.
For instance,
func foo(): bar {}
// fix it
func foo() -> bar {}
In this case we want to add a space before '->', but not after that.
With this change, we can simply `fixItReplace(ColonLoc, " -> ")`.
`fixItReplace()` automatically adjust the spaces around it.
If an inout parameter has an invalid type, we were unable to
distinguish it from a 'var' parameter, resulting in an invalid
diagnostic.
Fix this by adding a VarDecl::isInOut() flag, instead of
introspecting the type.
What I've implemented here deviates from the current proposal text
in the following ways:
- I had to introduce a FunctionArrowPrecedence to capture the parsing
of -> in expression contexts.
- I found it convenient to continue to model the assignment property
explicitly.
- The comparison and casting operators have historically been
non-associative; I have chosen to preserve that, since I don't
think this proposal intended to change it.
- This uses the precedence group names and higherThan/lowerThan
as agreed in discussion.
along with recent policy changes:
- For expression types that are not specifically handled, make sure to
produce a general "unused value" warning, catching a bunch of unused
values in the testsuite.
- For unused operator results, diagnose them as uses of the operator
instead of "calls".
- For calls, mutter the type of the result for greater specificity.
- For initializers, mutter the type of the initialized value.
- Look through OpenExistentialExpr's so we can handle protocol member
references propertly.
- Look through several other expressions so we handle @discardableResult
better.
Parameters (to methods, initializers, accessors, subscripts, etc) have always been represented
as Pattern's (of a particular sort), stemming from an early design direction that was abandoned.
Being built on top of patterns leads to patterns being overly complicated (e.g. tuple patterns
have to have varargs and default parameters) and make working on parameter lists complicated
and error prone. This might have been ok in 2015, but there is no way we can live like this in
2016.
Instead of using Patterns, carve out a new ParameterList and Parameter type to represent all the
parameter specific stuff. This simplifies many things and allows a lot of simplifications.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to do this very incrementally, so this is a huge patch. The good
news is that it erases a ton of code, and the technical debt that went with it. Ignoring test
suite changes, we have:
77 files changed, 2359 insertions(+), 3221 deletions(-)
This patch also makes a bunch of wierd things dead, but I'll sweep those out in follow-on
patches.
Fixes <rdar://problem/22846558> No code completions in Foo( when Foo has error type
Fixes <rdar://problem/24026538> Slight regression in generated header, which I filed to go with 3a23d75.
Fixes an overloading bug involving default arguments and curried functions (see the diff to
Constraints/diagnostics.swift, which we now correctly accept).
Fixes cases where problems with parameters would get emitted multiple times, e.g. in the
test/Parse/subscripting.swift testcase.
The source range for ParamDecl now includes its type, which permutes some of the IDE / SourceModel tests
(for the better, I think).
Eliminates the bogus "type annotation missing in pattern" error message when a type isn't
specified for a parameter (see test/decl/func/functions.swift).
This now consistently parenthesizes argument lists in function types, which leads to many diffs in the
SILGen tests among others.
This does break the "sibling indentation" test in SourceKit/CodeFormat/indent-sibling.swift, and
I haven't been able to figure it out. Given that this is experimental functionality anyway,
I'm just XFAILing the test for now. i'll look at it separately from this mongo diff.
Allow all keywords except for parameter introducers (var/let/inout) to
be argument labels when declaring or calling a
function/initializer/subscript, e.g., this
func touchesMatching(phase: NSTouchPhase, `in` view: NSView?) -> Set<NSTouch>
can now be expressed as
func touchesMatching(phase: NSTouchPhase, in view: NSView?) -> Set<NSTouch>
and the call goes from
event.touchesMatching(phase, `in`: view)
to
event.touchesMatching(phase, in: view)
Fixes [SR-344](https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-344) /
rdar://problem/22415674.
Revert "Make function parameters and refutable patterns always
immutable"
This reverts commit 8f2fbdc93a.
Once we have finally merged master into the Swift 2.2 branch to be, we
should revert this commit to turn the errors back on for Swift 3.0.
All refutable patterns and function parameters marked with 'var'
is now an error.
- Using explicit 'let' keyword on function parameters causes a warning.
- Don't suggest making function parameters mutable
- Remove uses in the standard library
- Update tests
rdar://problem/23378003
Now, instead of writing, e.g.,
func f(Int) { ... }
one must write the more-generally-consistent and explicit
func f(_: Int) { ... }
Fixes rdar://problem/16737312.
Swift SVN r29609
