Improve the diagnostics for situations where multiple access-level modifiers are used on the same declaration. Keep the original duplicate error message if the access levels are the same.
- unify_superclass_types_[23].swift: I will fix these soon.
rdar://90469643
- attr/accessibility_where_clause.swift: This one is dicey and should
probably be banned. rdar://90469477
Our walk over the requirement interface types meant that
computing the access level of an extension member depended
on type resolution and the GSB.
Fix this by adding a new request that simply collects all
TypeDecls referenced from a TypeRepr, and compute the
extension's maximum access level using that.
If we use Structural rather than Interface type resolution when
walking the extension's requirements, we don't have to build its
generic signature first.
That is, if there's a problem with a witness, and the witness comes
from a different extension from the conformance (or the original type,
when the conformance is on an extension), put the main diagnostic on
the conformance, with a note on the witness. This involves some
shuffling and rephrasing of existing diagnostics too.
There's a few reasons for this change:
- More context. It may not be obvious why a declaration in file
A.swift needs to be marked 'public' if you can't see the conformance
in B.swift.
- Better locations for imported declarations. If you're checking a
conformance in a source file but the witness came from an imported
module, it's better to put the diagnostic on the part you have
control over. (This is especially true in Xcode, which can't display
diagnostics on imported declarations in the source editor.)
- Plays better with batch mode. Without this change, you can have
diagnostics being reported in file A.swift that are tied to a
conformance declared in file B.swift. Of course the contents of
A.swift also affect the diagnostic, but compiling A.swift on its
own wouldn't produce the diagnostic, and so putting it there is
problematic.
The change does in some cases make for a worse user experience,
though; if you just want to apply the changes and move on, the main
diagnostic isn't in the "right place". It's the note that has the info
and possible fix-it. It's also a slightly more complicated
implementation.
What I've implemented here deviates from the current proposal text
in the following ways:
- I had to introduce a FunctionArrowPrecedence to capture the parsing
of -> in expression contexts.
- I found it convenient to continue to model the assignment property
explicitly.
- The comparison and casting operators have historically been
non-associative; I have chosen to preserve that, since I don't
think this proposal intended to change it.
- This uses the precedence group names and higherThan/lowerThan
as agreed in discussion.
'fileprivate' is considered a broader level of access than 'private',
but for now both of them are still available to the entire file. This
is intended as a migration aid.
One interesting fallout of the "access scope" model described in
758cf64 is that something declared 'private' at file scope is actually
treated as 'fileprivate' for diagnostic purposes. This is something
we can fix later, once the full model is in place. (It's not really
/wrong/ in that they have identical behavior, but diagnostics still
shouldn't refer to a type explicitly declared 'private' as
'fileprivate'.)
As a note, ValueDecl::getEffectiveAccess will always return 'FilePrivate'
rather than 'Private'; for purposes of optimization and code generation,
we should never try to distinguish these two cases.
This should have essentially no effect on code that's /not/ using
'fileprivate' other than altered diagnostics.
Progress on SE-0025 ('fileprivate' and 'private')
(in preparation for the private/fileprivate split)
An "access scope" is the outermost DeclContext where a particular
declaration may be referenced: for a 'fileprivate' declaration it's
the enclosing file, and for an 'internal' declaration it's the module.
'public' corresponds to a scope of "everything", represented by a null
DeclContext.
This model extends naturally to the (not-yet-implemented) SE-0025
notion of 'private', where the access scope is a declaration's
immediately enclosing DeclContext.
Complicating this model is the revised rules that allow, e.g., a public
declaration to be declared within an internal type. The access scope
for this declaration is still just the module, not "everything".
This commit reworks formal access control checking in terms of this
model, including tightening up some of the handling for '@testable'.
This implements the rule that you must be able to access a declaration's
type everywhere you can reference the declaration.
This was not intended to change compiler behavior, but in practice it
has made cross-file dependency tracking a bit more conservative
(unnecessarily), caught a mistake in diagnosing access violations,
and fixed a fuzzer-based crasher (see test changes).
Progress on SE-0025 ('private' and 'fileprivate')
(and any other member with higher access control than its enclosing type)
There's no effect, but it is now considered legal and the compiler will
no longer warn about it. This allows an API author to prototype their
API with proper access levels and still limit the top-level type.
If the new getEffectiveAccess computation turns out to be expensive, we
can cache the result.
Note that the compiler will still warn when putting a public member
inside an extension explicitly marked internal, because the extended
type could be public and then including a public member would be valid.
It is also still an error to put a public member inside a constrained
extension of an internal type, though I think this one is safe to
relax later.
Progress on SE-0025 ('private' and 'fileprivate')
Right now 'fileprivate' is parsed as an alias for 'private' (or
perhaps vice versa, since the semantics of 'private' haven't changed
yet). This allows us to migrate code to 'fileprivate' without waiting
for the full implementation.
Adds an associatedtype keyword to the parser tokens, and accepts either
typealias or associatedtype to create an AssociatedTypeDecl, warning
that the former is deprecated. The ASTPrinter now emits associatedtype
for AssociatedTypeDecls.
Separated AssociatedType from TypeAlias as two different kinds of
CodeCompletionDeclKinds. This part probably doesn’t turn out to be
absolutely necessary currently, but it is nice cleanup from formerly
specifically glomming the two together.
And then many, many changes to tests. The actual new tests for the fixits
is at the end of Generics/associated_types.swift.
- Enhance the branch new argument label overload diagnostic to just
print the argument labels that are the problem, instead of printing
the types inferred at the argument context. This can lead to confusion
particularly when an argument label is missing. For example before:
error: argument labels '(Int)' do not match any available overloads
note: overloads for 'TestOverloadSets.init' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (a: Z0), (value: Int), (value: Double)
after:
error: argument labels '(_:)' do not match any available overloads
note: overloads for 'TestOverloadSets.init' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (a: Z0), (value: Int), (value: Double)
Second, fix <rdar://problem/22451001> QoI: incorrect diagnostic when argument to print has the wrong type
by specifically diagnosing the problem when you pass in an argument to a nullary function. Before:
error: cannot convert value of type 'Int' to expected argument type '()'
after:
error: argument passed to call that takes no arguments
print(r22451001(5))
^
Swift SVN r31795
argument. For now we start with some of the most simple cases: single argument
calls. This dramatically improves the QoI for error messages in argument lists,
typically turning a error+note combo into a single specific error message.
Some minor improvements coming (and also generalizing this to n-ary calls), but it
is nice that all the infrastructure is starting to come together...
Swift SVN r30905
Otherwise, we end up with declarations with public access that do not
have public 'self' types. These declarations can then be used by other
modules, which may end up trying to access non-external symbols.
This closes a loophole currently in use by the standard library, so
the '_prext_ReverseIndexType' and '_ReverseCollectionType' protocols
become public for now. In order to keep the API impact minimized,
extensions involving these protocols now extend them directly, so that
all of the "private" stuff shows up in one place in the generated
interface. This is not a long-term solution, but it's no worse than
the rest of the underscore rules in the standard library.
rdar://problem/21380336 tracks relaxing access restrictions for protocol
conformances when the witnesses come from a different type, like a
protocol extension. This requires some SILGen work to do correctly.
Finishes rdar://problem/21559986
Swift SVN r30612
This still doesn't check an extension's /members/, but does ensure that
there's not an extension declared public that clearly has non-public
types in its 'where' clause.
More rdar://problem/21559986
Swift SVN r30611
facilities used by operators etc. This required a bunch of changes to make
the diagnostics changes strictly an improvement:
- Teach the new path about calls to TypeExprs.
- Teach evaluateCloseness some simple things about varargs.
- Make the generic diagnosis logic produce a better error when there is
exactly one match.
Overall, the resultant diagnostics are a step forward: we now produce candidate
set notes more uniformly, and the messages about some existing ones are
more specific. This is just another stepping stone towards progress though.
Swift SVN r30057
If you want to make the parameter and argument label the same in
places where you don't get the argument label for free (i.e., the
first parameter of a function or a parameter of a subscript),
double-up the identifier:
func translate(dx dx: Int, dy: Int) { }
Make this a warning with Fix-Its to ease migration. Part of
rdar://problem/17218256.
Swift SVN r27715
(Note that this registry isn't fully enabled yet; it's built so that
we can test it, but has not yet taken over the primary task of
managing conformances from the existing system).
The conformance registry tracks all of the protocols to which a
particular nominal type conforms, including those for which
conformance was explicitly specified, implied by other explicit
conformances, inherited from a superclass, or synthesized by the
implementation.
The conformance registry is a lazily-built data structure designed for
multi-file support (which has been a problematic area for protocol
conformances). It allows one to query for the conformances of a type
to a particular protocol, enumerate all protocols to which a type
conforms, and enumerate all of the conformances that are associated
with a particular declaration context (important to eliminate
duplicated witness tables).
The conformance registry diagnoses conflicts and ambiguities among
different conformances of the same type to the same protocol. There
are three common cases where we'll see a diagnostic:
1) Redundant explicit conformance of a type to a protocol:
protocol P { }
struct X : P { }
extension X : P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
2) Explicit conformance to a protocol that collides with an inherited
conformance:
protocol P { }
class Super : P { }
class Sub : Super, P { } // error: redundant explicit conformance
3) Ambiguous placement of an implied conformance:
protocol P1 { }
protocol P2 : P1 { }
protocol P3 : P1 { }
struct Y { }
extension Y : P2 { }
extension Y : P3 { } // error: ambiguous implied conformance to 'P1'
This happens when two different explicit conformances (here, P2 and
P3) placed on different declarations (e.g., two extensions, or the
original definition and other extension) both imply the same
conformance (P1), and neither of the explicit conformances imply
each other. We require the user to explicitly specify the ambiguous
conformance to break the ambiguity and associate the witness table
with a specific context.
Swift SVN r26067
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
them to cover all declaration types.
This ensures that we reject attributes on declkinds where they don't make sense. I went so far
as to make the QoI decent when an attribute can only be applied to a single kind of declaration
to make sure the error message says "@IBAction is only valid on 'func' declarations" as well.
This resolves <rdar://problem/17681151> 'dynamic' accepted by the compiler where it shouldn't be
Swift SVN r19982
- Setters cannot (in this release) have more accessibility than getters.
- The modifiers don't make sense for constants and read-only vars/subscripts.
Swift SVN r19548
This does no validation of the access control modifiers.
As part of this commit, note that "virtual" attributes may actually be
written in the source under another spelling. Update a few other parts of
the source to account for that.
Swift SVN r19140
