instead of being an expression.
To the user, this has a couple of behavior changes, stemming from its non-expression-likeness.
- #available cannot be parenthesized anymore
- #available is in its own clause, not used in a 'where' clause of if/let.
Also, the implementation in the compiler is simpler and fits the model better. This
fixes:
<rdar://problem/20904820> Following a "let" condition with #available is incorrectly rejected
Swift SVN r28521
Now that we don't have generic parameter lists at arbitrary positions
within the extended type of an extension declaration, simplify the
representation of the extended type down to a TypeLoc along with a
(compiler-synthesized) generic parameter list.
On the parsing side, just parse a type for the extended type, rather
than having a special grammar. We still reject anything that is not a
nominal type (of course), but it's simpler just to call it a type.
As a drive-by, fix the crasher when extending a type with module
qualification, rdar://problem/20900870.
Swift SVN r28469
Fix an assert-on-valid caused by a broken getSourceRange()
implementation and a missing diagnostic caused by a broken
walker implementation.
Swift SVN r28142
Loosen restrictions on where #available() can appear in IfStmt guards and refine the
context for guard StmtConditionElements following an availability check.
This enables #available() to be combined with if let optional binding:
if #available(iOS 8.0, *),
let x = someIOS8API() {
// Do more iOS 8 stuff
}
and
if let x = someIOS7API() where #available(iOS 8.0, *),
let y = someIOS8API() {
// Do more iOS 8 stuff
}
Swift SVN r28096
a list of their elements, instead of abusing TupleExpr/ParenExpr
to hold them.
This is a more correct representation of what is going on in the
code and produces slightly better diagnostics in obscure cases.
However, the real reason to fix this is that the ParenExpr's that
were being formed were not being installed into the "semantic"
view of the collection expr, not getting type checked correctly,
and led to nonsensical ParenExprs. These non-sensical ParenExprs
blocked turning on AST verification of other ones.
With this fixed, we can finally add AST verification that
IdentityExpr's have sensible types.
Swift SVN r27850
Now we bind the defer body into a ClosureExpr and emit it at the point of
the defer. At any exit points out of the controlled region, we emit a call
to the closure.
This should cover any problems where expressions cannot be emitted multiple times.
However, this is dramatically more complex than the obvious implementation, so I
hope this patch can be reverted.
Swift SVN r27767
Change all uses of "do { ... } while <cond>" to use "repeat" instead.
Rename DoWhileStmt to RepeatWhileStmt. Add diagnostic suggesting change
of 'do' to 'repeat' if a condition is found afterwards.
<rdar://problem/20336424> rename do/while loops to repeat/while & introduce "repeat <count> {}" loops
Swift SVN r27650
Add syntax "[#Color(...)#]" for object literals, to be used by
Playgrounds for inline color wells etc. The arguments are forwarded to
the relevant constructor (although we will probably change this soon,
since (colorLiteralRed:... blue:... green:... alpha) is kind of
verbose). Add _ColorLiteralConvertible and _ImageLiteralConvertible
protocols, and link them to the new expressions in the type checker.
CSApply replaces the object literal expressions with a call to the
appropriate protocol witness.
Swift SVN r27479
Previously some parts of the compiler referred to them as "fields",
and most referred to them as "elements". Use the more generic 'elements'
nomenclature because that's what we refer to other things in the compiler
(e.g. the elements of a bracestmt).
At the same time, make the API better by providing "getElement" consistently
and using it, instead of getElements()[i].
NFC.
Swift SVN r26894
This patch introduces a new kind of pattern for matching bool literals, i.e. true and false. Essentially, it is very similar to a pattern for matching enum elements, but simpler. Most of the code is just a boiler plate code copy/pasted from the code for enum element patterns. The only different thing is the emitBoolDispatch function, which emits a SIL code for matching bools.
With this patch, we don't get any false non-exhaustive switch diagnostics for switches on bools anymore. And we have a lot of radars complaining about it. For example rdar://16514545 and rdar://20130240.
Note, that this patch fixes the non-exhaustive switch diagnostics without changing the internal representation of bools. Implementing bool as an enum would have the same effect when it comes to these diagnostics and we would get this diagnostics fix for free, i.e. without any code committed here. But implementing bools-as-enums is an ongoing work and I'm investigating its performance implications. If we become confident that bool-as-enum does not have a negative impact on performance and decide to merge it, then we can revert this patch as it would not be necessary anymore. But if we decide to skip the enum-as-bool approach to its performance issues, then we would have at least fixed the false non-exhaustive diagnostics for bools by means of this patch.
Swift SVN r26650
This patch also introduces some SILGen infrastructure for
dividing the function into "ordinary" and "postmatter"
sections, with error-handling-like stuff going into the
final section. Currently, this is largely undermined by
SILBuilder, but I'm going to fix that in a follow-up.
Swift SVN r26422
Previously, a multi-pattern var/let decl like:
var x = 4, y = 17
would produce two pattern binding decls (one for x=4 one for y=17). This is convenient
in some ways, but is bad for source reproducibility from the ASTs (see, e.g. the improvements
in test/IDE/structure.swift and test/decl/inherit/initializer.swift).
The hardest part of this change was to get parseDeclVar to set up the AST in a way
compatible with our existing assumptions. I ended up with an approach that forms PBDs in
more erroneous cases than before. One downside of this is that we now produce a spurious
"type annotation missing in pattern"
diagnostic in some cases. I'll take care of that in a follow-on patch.
Swift SVN r26224
If the placeholder is a typed one, parse its type string into a TypeRepr,
resolve it during typechecking and set it as the type for the associated EditorPlaceholderExpr.
Swift SVN r26215
For now, we assume that 'while' after the braces starts
a do/while rather than being an independent statement.
We should disambiguate this, or better, remove do/while.
Tests later.
Swift SVN r26079
We parse 'try' as if it were a unary operator allowed on an
arbitrary element of an expr-sequence, but sequence-folding
constrains it to never appear on the RHS of most operators.
We do allow it on the RHS of an assignment or conditional
operator, but not if there's anything to the right which
was not parsed within the RHS.
We do this for assignments so that
var x = try whatever
and
x = try whatever
both work as you might expect.
We do this for conditionals because it feels natural to
allow 'try' in the center operand, and then disallowing it
in the right operand feels very strange.
In both case, this works largely because these operators are
assumed to be very low-precedence; there are no standard
operators which would parse outside the RHS. But if you
create one and use 'try' before it, we'll diagnose it.
Swift SVN r26052
This introduces a new pattern, spelled "x?" which is sugar for
matching ".Some(x)". It also changes the parser slightly so that
_ (the discard expr) is parsed as a unary expr instead of as an
expr. This allows it to have postfix ? after it, which is important
in pattern contexts to support "case _?:".
Swift SVN r25907
if-let statements (also while and var, of course) that include multiple bindings
and where clauses.
SILGen support still remains, it currently just asserts on the new constructs.
Swift SVN r24239
a capture list hung off the CaptureExpr it was associated with. This made
sense lexically (since a capture list is nested inside of the closure) but
not semantically. Semantically, the capture list initializers are evaluated
outside the closure, the variables are bound to those values, then the closure
captures the newly bound values.
To directly represent this, represent captures with a new CaptureListExpr node,
which contains the ClosureExpr inside of it. This correctly models the semantic
relationship, and makes sure that AST walkers all process the initializers of the
capture list as being *outside* of the closure.
This fixes rdar://19146761 and probably others.
Swift SVN r23756
This commit changes ASTWalker to preserve AbstractFunctionDecl body kinds. When
walking over an AbstractFunctionDecl, ASTWalker calls setBody() on the
declaration to update the body after traversal. Prior to this commit, setBody()
would unconditionally set the body kind to BodyKind::Parsed --- that is,
traversing the AST would change the body kind to Parsed. In some cases, this
modified a body kind from TypeChecked to Parsed, causing a small number of
standard library functions to be type checked twice. This behavior also
interferes with the creation of type refinement contexts for variable accessor
functions (coming in a future commit).
This commit adds an additional parameter to setBody() that allows callers to
provide a body kind (this defaults to Parsed) and changes ASTWalker to preserve
the body kind when walking a AbstractFunctionDecl.
Swift SVN r22607
This patch adds a new 'pound_os' token, a new case for it in parseExprPostfix, and parsing of platform version constraints, e.g., OSX >= 10.10.
It also adds enough type checking and SILGen to get the parsing tests to run without triggering "Unimplemented" assertions.
Swift SVN r21865
This commit adds a new expression (AvailabilityQueryExpr) and a single kind of
specification for when a block of code or function is available
(VersionConstraintAvailabilitySpec). We may add more kinds of specifications
in the future. At the moment, the AvailabilityQueryExpr allows only a
single platform to be queried; I will add support for multiple platforms
in a later commit.
This commit contains just the added AST nodes; no parsing, type checking, etc.
I’ve added assert(false && “Unimplemented”) for places where support for
AvailabilityQueryExpr will need to be added later.
Swift SVN r21760
If either parameter to == has a known concrete type at constraint generation
time, see if that type is a nominal that can derive its conformance to
Equatable. If so, do so, and then add that == to the overload set.
(It may already be there, but that's okay -- it will get uniqued later.)
This isn't perfect because it relies on one of the parameters to == having
a concrete type /before/ constraint solving. There are plenty of reasons
why that wouldn't happen. But this at least fixes the common case, and
breaking the expression up into multiple lines is a less distasteful
workaround than replacing (x == .Value) with !(x != .Value). I've added a
test case that should work but doesn't that we can revisit later.
rdar://problem/18073705
Swift SVN r21557
The eventual goal for extensions of generic types is to require them
to specify their generic parameters, e.g.,
extension Array<T> { ... }
rather than today's
extension Array { ... }
Start parsing (optional) generic parameters here, and update the
representation of ExtensionDecl to accomodate this new grammar
production. Aside from the parser changes, there's no intended
functionality change here.
Swift SVN r20682
We no longer need this language feature. The Sema support is still skeletally kept in place because removing it seems to totally break pointer conversions; I need to work with Joe and Doug to figure out why that's the case.
Swift SVN r19289
