Insert an implicit conversion from pack types to tuples with equivalent parallel structure. That means
1) The tuple must have the same arity
2) The tuple may not have any argument labels
3) The tuple may not have any variadic or inout components
4) The tuple must have the same element types as the pack
Despite being otherwise disconnected from the
constraint system, it's possible for it to affect
how we type-check tuple matches in certain cases.
This is due to the fact that:
- It can have a lower type variable ID than an
opened generic parameter type, so becomes the
representative when merged with it. And because it
has a different locator, this can influence
binding prioritization.
- Tuple subtyping is broken, as it's currently a
*weaker* relationship than conversion.
Therefore, temporarily restore this bit of logic
for language versions < 6. If possible, we should
try and fix tuple subtying in Swift 6 mode to not
accept label mismatches, so that it's not more
permissive than tuple conversion.
rdar://85263844
FunctionInput relies on being able to represent
parameter lists as tuples, which won't be possible
once parameter flags are stripped from tuple types.
FunctionResult is reasonable, but is currently
unused.
Attempting to pre-compute a set of referenced type variables
upfront is incorrect because parameter(s) and/or result type
could be bound before conjunction is attempted. Let's compute
a set of referenced variables before each element gets attempted.
Elements have to be solved in isolation, so if conjunction were
to reference all of the variables referenced by its elements then
it would have to bring unrelated type variables into its scope.
It's similar to disjunction constraint but represents an "and"
relationship between its elements instead of "or", so all of the
elements have to produce a solution for conjunction constraint
to be considered solved successfully.
* [TypeResolver][TypeChecker] Add support for structural opaque result types
* [TypeResolver][TypeChecker] Clean up changes that add structural opaque result types
Conformance constraints could be transferred through conversions,
but that would also require checking implicit conversions
such as optional and pointer promotions for conformance is the
type itself doesn't conform, for that let's add a special constraint
`TransitivelyConformsTo`.
The first type represents a result of an unresolved member chain,
and the second type is its base type. This constraint acts almost
like `Equal` but also enforces following semantics:
- It's possible to infer a base from a result type by looking through
this constraint, but it's only solved when both types are bound.
- If base is a protocol metatype, this constraint becomes a conformance
check instead of an equality.
Currently the pattern is to collect the type variables and then unique
them. Instead of asking clients to do uniquing, let's just accept a set
as an argument.
To better preserve source compatibility, teach the constraint
solver to try both the new forward scanning rule as well as the
backward scanning rule when matching a single, unlabeled trailing
closure. In the extreme case, where the unlabeled trailing closure
matches different parameters with the different rules, and yet both
produce a potential match, introduce a disjunction to explore both
possibilities.
Prefer solutions that involve forward scans to those that involve
backward scans, so we only use the backward scan as a fallback.
Introduce an experimental mode (behind the flag
`experimental-one-way-closure-params`) that places one-way
constraints between closure parameter types and references to those
parameters within the body of the closure. The intent here is to
break up constraint systems further, potentially improving type
checking performance and making way for larger closure bodies to be
supported.
This is a source-breaking change when the body of a single-expression
closure is used to determine the parameter types. One obvious example
is when there is no contextual type, e.g.,
let _ = { $0 + 1 }
this type-checks today because `1` becomes `Int`, which matches the
`+` overload with the type `(Int, Int) -> Int`, determining the
parameter type `Int` for the closure. Such code would not type-check
with one-way constraints.
This constraint connects type variable representing a closure
expression to its inferred type and behaves just like regular
`Defaultable` constraint expect for type inference where it's
used only if there are no contextual bindings available.
Introduce a new kind of constraint, the "value witness" constraint,
which captures a reference to a witness for a specific protocol
conformance. It otherwise acts like a more restricted form of a "value
member" constraint, where the specific member is known (as a
ValueDecl*) in advance.
The constraint is effectively dependent on the protocol
conformance itself; if that conformance fails, mark the type variables
in the resolved member type as "holes", so that the conformance
failure does not cascade.
Note that the resolved overload for this constraint always refers to
the requirement, rather than the witness, so we will end up recording
witness-method references in the AST rather than concrete references,
and leave it up to the optimizers to perform devirtualization. This is
demonstrated by the SIL changes needed in tests, and is part of the
wider resilience issue with conformances described by
rdar://problem/22708391.
An awful pattern we use throughout the compiler is to save and restore global flags just for little things. In this case, it was just to turn on some extra options in AST printing for type variables. The kicker is that the ASTDumper doesn't even respect this flag. Add this as a PrintOption and remove the offending save-and-restores.
This doesn't quite get them all: we appear to have productized this pattern in the REPL.
One-way constraint expressions, which are the only things that
introduce one-way constraints at this point, want to look through
lvalue types to produce values. Rename OneWayBind to OneWayEqual, map
it down to an Equal constraint when it is simplified (to drop
lvalue-ness), and apply that coercion during constraint application.
Part of rdar://problem/50150793.
Introduce the notion of "one-way" binding constraints of the form
$T0 one-way bind to $T1
which treats the type variables $T0 and $T1 as independent up until
the point where $T1 simplifies down to a concrete type, at which point
$T0 will be bound to that concrete type. $T0 won't be bound in any
other way, so type information ends up being propagated right-to-left,
only. This allows a constraint system to be broken up in more
components that are solved independently. Specifically, the connected
components algorithm now proceeds as follows:
1. Compute connected components, excluding one-way constraints from
consideration.
2. Compute a directed graph amongst the components using only the
one-way constraints, where an edge A -> B indicates that the type
variables in component A need to be solved before those in component
B.
3. Using the directed graph, compute the set of components that need
to be solved before a given component.
To utilize this, implement a new kind of solver step that handles the
propagation of partial solutions across one-way constraints. This
introduces a new kind of "split" within a connected component, where
we collect each combination of partial solutions for the input
components and (separately) try to solve the constraints in this
component. Any correct solution from any of these attempts will then
be recorded as a (partial) solution for this component.
For example, consider:
let _: Int8 = b ? Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(17)) :
Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(42\
))
where int8Or16 is overloaded with types `(Int8) -> Int8` and
`(Int16) -> Int16`. There are two one-way components (`int8Or16(17)`)
and (`int8Or16(42)`), each of which can produce a value of type `Int8`
or `Int16`. Those two components will be solved independently, and the
partial solutions for each will be fed into the component that
evaluates the ternary operator. There are four ways to attempt that
evaluation:
```
[Int8, Int8]
[Int8, Int16]
[Int16, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
To test this, introduce a new expression builtin `Builtin.one_way(x)` that
introduces a one-way expression constraint binding the result of the
expression 'x'. The builtin is meant to be used for testing purposes,
and the one-way constraint expression itself can be synthesized by the
type checker to introduce one-way constraints later on.
Of these two, there are only two (partial) solutions that can work at
all, because the types in the ternary operator need a common
supertype:
[Int8, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
Therefore, these are the partial solutions that will be considered the
results of the component containing the ternary expression. Note that
only one of them meets the final constraint (convertibility to
`Int8`), so the expression is well-formed.
Part of rdar://problem/50150793.
