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
`CodeCompletioString::getName()` was used only as the sorting keys in
`CodeCompletionContext::sortCompletionResults()` which is effectively
deprecated. There's no reason to check them in `swift-ide-test`. Instead,
check `printCodeCompletionResultFilterName()` that is actually used for
filtering.
To describe fine grained priorities.
Introduce 'CodeCompletionFlair' that is a set of more descriptive flags for
prioritizing completion items. This aims to replace '
SemanticContextKind::ExpressionSpecific' which was a "catch all"
prioritization flag.
Previously, we always assumed that the position in the arguments would match the position in the parameter, which isn’t true in case of defaulted arguments. Try matching parameters based on argument labels to give better completion results.
Fixes rdar://60346573
Following on from updating regular member completion, this hooks up unresolved
member completion (i.e. .<complete here>) to the typeCheckForCodeCompletion API
to generate completions from all solutions the constraint solver produces (even
those requiring fixes), rather than relying on a single solution being applied
to the AST (if any). This lets us produce unresolved member completions even
when the contextual type is ambiguous or involves errors.
Whenever typeCheckExpression is called on an expression containing a code
completion expression and a CompletionCallback has been set, each solution
formed is passed to the callback so the type of the completion expression can
be extracted and used to lookup up the members to return.
Since the user can now write additional member accesses off of an UnresolvedMemberExpr, we should offer all available completions rather than just those that match the contextual type.
For exmaple:
func foo(_: Int, _: IntOption)
func foo(_: Float, _: FloatOption)
foo(intVal, .<HERE>)
Previously code completion suggests static member from 'IntOption' and
'FloatOption' without any prioritization. Prioritize members from
'IntOption' because the user probably wants to input them.
In such cases, 'CodeCompletionExpr' at the cursor position is
pre-typechecked to 'IntOption'. So mark results with matching type with
'ExprSpecific'.
rdar://problem/62121221
- In member completions, when 'callAsFunction' decls are found, suggest
call patterns
- In call pattern completions, fallback to search 'callAsFunction' if
the base type is not a function type
rdar://problem/59792682
