I think that preferring identical over convertible makes sense in e.g. C++ where we have implicit user-defined type conversions but since we don’t have them in Swift, I think the distinction doesn’t make too much sense, because if we have a `func foo(x: Int?)`, want don’t really want to prioritize variables of type `Int?` over `Int` Similarly if we have `func foo(x: View)`, we don’t want to prioritize a variable of type `View` over e.g. `Text`.
rdar://91349364
... and UnicodeScalar, which is technically more correct than only
showing it for String. This also happens to workaround a bug where we
won't show "" for string.contains.
rdar://problem/34746368
change includes both the necessary protocol updates and the deprecation
warnings
suitable for migration. A future patch will remove the renamings and
make this
a hard error.
semantically unambiguous.
We didn't actually intend to change how programmers normally
constructed these types, but the change to the object literal
syntax accidentally caused these initializers to have very
natural-seeming signatures. These initializers also created
possible ambiguities with the actual initializers. Renaming
them to refer to their function as literal initializers is the
right thing to do.
Unfortunately, this provided to be somewhat annoying, as the
code was written to assume that the argument tuple following
e.g. #colorLiteral could be directly passed to the initializer.
We solve this by hacking on both ends of the constraint system:
during generation we form a conversion constraint to the
original, idealized parameter type, and during application we
rewrite the argument tuple type to use the actual labels.
This nicely limits the additional complexity to just the
parts dealing with object literals.
Note that we can't just implicitly rewrite the tuple expression
because that would break invariants tying the labels to physical
source ranges. We also don't want to just change the literal
syntax again and break compatibility with existing uses.
rdar://26148507
* Implement the majority of parsing support for SE-0039.
* Parse old object literals names using new syntax and provide FixIt.
For example, parse "#Image(imageLiteral:...)" and provide a FixIt to
change it to "#imageLiteral(resourceName:...)". Now we see something like:
test.swift:4:9: error: '#Image' has been renamed to '#imageLiteral
var y = #Image(imageLiteral: "image.jpg")
^~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~
#imageLiteral resourceName
Handling the old syntax, and providing a FixIt for that, will be handled in a separate
commit.
Needs tests. Will be provided in later commit once full parsing support is done.
* Add back pieces of syntax map for object literals.
* Add parsing support for old object literal syntax.
... and provide fixits to new syntax.
Full tests to come in later commit.
* Improve parsing of invalid object literals with old syntax.
* Do not include bracket in code completion results.
* Remove defunct code in SyntaxModel.
* Add tests for migration fixits.
* Add literals to code completion overload tests.
@akyrtzi told me this should be fine.
* Clean up response tests not to include full paths.
* Further adjust offsets.
* Mark initializer for _ColorLiteralConvertible in UIKit as @nonobjc.
* Put attribute in the correct place.
Except for nil literals, we don't want to look at the optional itself,
since the typechecker would implicitly look to the underlying type.
rdar://problem/24707210
If there is a type context, hide literal suggesetions that don't match
it, unless they are keywords and we have filtered to their names.
Incidentally fix an output buffering issue when combining filtering with
the -raw flag in complete-test.
Part of rdar://problem/23865118
In practice things that are float literal convertible are also integer
literal convertible so this isn't pulling its weight.
Part of rdar://problem/23865118
Go beyond the existing keyword completions to include more literal
suggestions: 0, 0.0, "text", [item], [key: value], (item, item)
For rdar://problem/21923069
Swift SVN r32890
