Based on its argument names and messages, `expectEqual` and friends expects the expected value of the calculation being tested to be provided as its first argument, and the actual value as the second:
```
expectEqual(4, 2 + 2)
```
This does not always match actual use -- folks like myself find the opposite ordering far more natural:
```
expectEqual(2 + 2, 4)
```
`expectEqual` currently uses the `expected`/`actual` terminology in its failure messages, causing confusion and needless suffering.
Change `expectEqual`'s declaration and error messages to use a naming scheme that does not assume specific roles for the two arguments. (Namely, use `first`/`second` instead of `expected`/`actual`.)
An alternative way to solve this would be to use argument labels, as in `expectEqual(expected: 4, actual: 2 + 2)`, or to introduce some sort of expression builder scheme such as `expect(2 + 2).toEqual(2)`. These seem needlessly fussy and overly clever, respectively.
This adjusts the paths in the test to support the Linux and Windows path
separators. Loosen the test to accept the interleaved stdout output on
Windows.
Implements SE-0055: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0055-optional-unsafe-pointers.md
- Add NULL as an extra inhabitant of Builtin.RawPointer (currently
hardcoded to 0 rather than being target-dependent).
- Import non-object pointers as Optional/IUO when nullable/null_unspecified
(like everything else).
- Change the type checker's *-to-pointer conversions to handle a layer of
optional.
- Use 'AutoreleasingUnsafeMutablePointer<NSError?>?' as the type of error
parameters exported to Objective-C.
- Drop NilLiteralConvertible conformance for all pointer types.
- Update the standard library and then all the tests.
I've decided to leave this commit only updating existing tests; any new
tests will come in the following commits. (That may mean some additional
implementation work to follow.)
The other major piece that's missing here is migration. I'm hoping we get
a lot of that with Swift 1.1's work for optional object references, but
I still need to investigate.
