Tweaked usable check:
* Local type/func decls are usable even before declaration
* Outer nominal Instance member are not usable
* Type context cannot close over values in outer type contexts
Added shadowing rule by the base name:
* Type members don't shadow each other as long as they are in the
same type context.
* Local values shadow everything in outer scope
* Except that 'func' decl doesn't shadow 'var' decl if they are in the
same scope.
rdar://86285396
Mention the let/var character of the property in addition to its static
spelling kind. Then drop the reference to "specifier". As icing on top,
offer to insert an initializer after any binding patterns.
rdar://19827674
Make the message within 80 columns width
Improve diagnostic for read-only properties
Improve diagnostic for read-only properties
Improve diagnostic for read-only properties
Previously, property names are hidden in the whole range of the
declarations. Now, it's only hidden in its own initializer range.
rdar://problem/49697202
...and collapse StaticVar/ClassVar and StaticLet/ClassLet into
StaticProperty/ClassProperty.
"var" and "let" aren't great nouns to use in diagnostics to begin with,
especially alongside semantic terms like "instance method". Focus on
the type vs. non-type aspect instead with "property", which better
matches how people talk about member vars (and lets) anyway.
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".
Try to match the original spelling of static/class in diagnostics and
when printing the AST. Also fixes cases with
PrintOptions.PrintImplicitAttrs = false, where we would just print
'class', which was not valid code.
Parse 'var [behavior] x: T', and when we see it, try to instantiate the property's
implementation in terms of the given behavior. To start out, behaviors are modeled
as protocols. If the protocol follows this pattern:
```
protocol behavior {
associatedtype Value
}
extension behavior {
var value: Value { ... }
}
```
then the property is instantiated by forming a conformance to `behavior` where
`Self` is bound to the enclosing type and `Value` is bound to the property's
declared type, and invoking the accessors of the `value` implementation:
```
struct Foo {
var [behavior] foo: Int
}
/* behaves like */
extension Foo: private behavior {
@implements(behavior.Value)
private typealias `[behavior].Value` = Int
var foo: Int {
get { return value }
set { value = newValue }
}
}
```
If the protocol requires a `storage` member, and provides an `initStorage` method
to provide an initial value to the storage:
```
protocol storageBehavior {
associatedtype Value
var storage: Something<Value> { ... }
}
extension storageBehavior {
var value: Value { ... }
static func initStorage() -> Something<Value> { ... }
}
```
then a stored property of the appropriate type is instantiated to witness the
requirement, using `initStorage` to initialize:
```
struct Foo {
var [storageBehavior] foo: Int
}
/* behaves like */
extension Foo: private storageBehavior {
@implements(storageBehavior.Value)
private typealias `[storageBehavior].Value` = Int
@implements(storageBehavior.storage)
private var `[storageBehavior].storage`: Something<Int> = initStorage()
var foo: Int {
get { return value }
set { value = newValue }
}
}
```
In either case, the `value` and `storage` properties should support any combination
of get-only/settable and mutating/nonmutating modifiers. The instantiated property
follows the settability and mutating-ness of the `value` implementation. The
protocol can also impose requirements on the `Self` and `Value` types.
Bells and whistles such as initializer expressions, accessors,
out-of-line initialization, etc. are not implemented. Additionally, behaviors
that instantiate storage are currently only supported on instance properties.
This also hasn't been tested past sema yet; SIL and IRGen will likely expose
additional issues.
Otherwise, a struct's static property cannot witness two different
protocol requirements, because the second one thinks it is mutating.
Probably we should push the isInstanceMember() check up into the
code that computes isMutating(). A more principled cleanup for this
code is coming soon.
Enhance fixItRemove() to be a bit more careful about what whitespace it leaves around: if the thing it is removing has leading and trailing whitespace already, this nukes an extra space to avoid leaving double spaces or incorrectly indented results.
This includes an extra fix for looking off the start of a buffer, which extractText doesn't and can't handle.
This fixes <rdar://problem/21045509> Fixit deletes 'let' from non-binding 'if case let' statements, but leaves an extra space
Swift SVN r29449
if the thing it is removing has leading and trailing whitespace already, this nukes
an extra space to avoid leaving double spaces or incorrectly indented results. This
fixes <rdar://problem/21045509> Fixit deletes 'let' from non-binding 'if case let' statements, but leaves an extra space
Swift SVN r29419
var/let bindings to _ when they are never used, and use some values that
are only written. This is a testsuite cleanup, NFC. More to come.
Swift SVN r28406
Static members are never mutating, and having them be mutating in protocols
resulted in requirement mismatches.
rdar://problem/19887250
Swift SVN r25593
Most tests were using %swift or similar substitutions, which did not
include the target triple and SDK. The driver was defaulting to the
host OS. Thus, we could not run the tests when the standard library was
not built for OS X.
Swift SVN r24504
Append "did you mean 'static'?" when hitting the unimplemented class
stored properties diagnostic in a class context.
Provide a fix-it for typing "static final" in a class, which is
redundant.
Swift SVN r24358
The previous patch to allow static class stored properties
inadvertently allowed 'class final' spellings for static
stored properties in classes. This patch only allows 'static'
spellings to create the global storage.
Swift SVN r24323
rdar://problem/17198298
- Allow 'static' in protocol property and func requirements, but not 'class'.
- Allow 'static' methods in classes - they are 'class final'.
- Only allow 'class' methods in classes (or extensions of classes)
- Remove now unneeded diagnostics related to finding 'static' in previously banned places.
- Update relevant diagnostics to make the new rules clear.
Swift SVN r24260
... now that we have an exquisitely shaved yak.
This provides a simple and uniform model for "let" constants: they are always either
immediately initialized in their declaration, or they are initialized dynamically
exactly once before any use.
This is a simple generalization of our current model for initializers, but enables
the use of let constants in more cases in local context, e.g. patterns like this:
let x : SomeThing
if condition {
x = foo()
} else {
x = bar()
}
use(x)
Previously this would have to be declared a "var" for no good reason: the value is
only ever initialized, never actually mutated.
The implementation of this is reasonably straight-forward now that the infrastructure
is in place: Sema treats 'let' constants as "settable" if they lack an initializer
(either in the declaration or in a non-PBD binding). This exposes them as an lvalue
at the AST level. SILGen then lowers these things to an alloc_stack, and DI enforces
the "initialization only" requirement that it already enforces for uninitialized 'let'
properties in structs/classes.
Swift SVN r23916
Having VarDecl created with IsStatic=false and then modifying it to true later seems
fragile, e.g. in this bug this attribute was not properly set because of early-outs.
In this patch I just moved code fixing VarDecl, but in future we should consider
making this flag immutable and initializing it on creation.
Swift SVN r23406
