To compute the expected type of a call pattern (which is the return type of the function if that call pattern is being used), we called `getTypeForCompletion` for the entire call, in the same way that we do for the code completion token. However, this pattern does not generally work. For the code completion token it worked because the code completion expression doesn’t have an inherent type and it inherits the type solely from its context. Calls, however, have an inherent return type and that type gets assigned as the `typeForCompletion`.
Implement targeted checks for the two most common cases where an expected type exists: If the call that we suggest call patterns for is itself an argument to another function or if it is used in a place that has a contextual type in the constraint system (eg. a variable binding or a `return` statement). This means that we no longer return `Convertible` for call patterns in some more complex scenarios. But given that this information was computed based on incorrect results and that in those cases all call patterns had a `Convertible` type relation, I think that’s acceptable. Fixing this would require recording more information in the constraints system, which is out-of-scope for now.
Sometimes the type variable itself doesn't have have an originator that can be replaced by an archetype but one of its equivalent type variable does.
Search thorough all equivalent type variables, looking for one that can be replaced by a generic parameter.
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
This hooks up call argument position completion to the typeCheckForCodeCompletion API to generate completions from all the solutions the constraint solver produces (even those requiring fixes), rather than relying on a single solution being applied to the AST (if any).
Co-authored-by: Nathan Hawes <nathan.john.hawes@gmail.com>
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.
instead of the pre-typechecked type and the referenced decl in the AST
so that we can suggests all overloads even if it happen to be
typechecked to a method. For example
struct MyType {
func foo() {}
func foo(_ int: Int) {}
func foo(name: String, value: String) {}
}
func test(val: MyType) {
value.foo(#^COMPLETE^#)
}
In this case, the call is typechecked to 'MyType.foo(_:)', but we want
to suggest all overloads.
rdar://problem/59285399
