The present approach is not prudent because `@concurrent` synchronous
functions, a natural extension, are a likely-to-happen future direction,
whereas the current inference rule is entirely grounded on `@concurrent`
being exclusive to async functions.
If we were to ship this rule, we would have to keep the promise for
backwards compatibility when implementing the aforementioned future
direction, replacing one inconsistency with another, and possibly
introducing new bug-prone expression checking code.
```swift
func foo(_: () -> Void) {}
func foo(_: () async -> Void) {}
// In a future without this change and `@concurrent` synchronous
// functions accepted, the first call resolves to the first overload,
// and the second call resolves to the second, despite `@concurrent` no
// longer implying `async`.
foo { }
foo { @concurrent in }
```
This change also drops the fix-it for removing `@concurrent` when used
on a synchronous closure. With the inference rule gone, and the
diagnosis delayed until after solution application, this error raises a
fairly balanced choice between removing the attribute and being
explicit about the effect, where a unilateral suggestion is quite
possibly more harmful than useful.
(cherry picked from commit 58d5059617)
The compiler shouldn't accept mismatch in explicit isolation attributes
because it could lead to incorrect isolation selection.
Resolves: rdar://155589753
(cherry picked from commit a9373c0f3f)
It's shouldn't be possible to use these attributes directly on
the function type that is `@isolated(any)` as per SE-0461 proposal
but it shouldn't preclude declarations that have parameters with
`@isolated(any)` from using them.
Resolves: rdar://154754939
(cherry picked from commit a522448e90)
Introduction of `@concurrent` attribute caused an unintended
side-effect in `ClosureEffectsRequest` since the attribute
could only be used on `async` types setting `async` too early
prevented body analysis for `throws` from running.
Resolves: rdar://151421590
(cherry picked from commit cda9866b26)
