This makes diagnostics more verbose and accurate, because
it's possible to distinguish how many parameters there are
based on the message itself.
Also there are multiple diagnostic messages in a format of
`<descriptive-kind> <decl-name> ...` that get printed as
e.g. `subscript 'subscript'` if empty labels are omitted.
This patch adds warning for redundant access-level modifiers
used in an extension. It also refines the diagnostics of
access_control_ext_member_more issues, in case the fixit
could suggest redundant modifiers.
Resolves: SR-8453.
From the perspective of the compiler implementation, they're elements. But users will think of these as cases—and many diagnostics already refer to these as enum cases.
Move the existing test into Compatibility/tuple_arguments_4.swift.
Move the Swift 3 test, Compatibility/tuple_arguments.swift, into
Compatibility/tuple_arguments_4.swift.
Add a couple new tests to each file to capture what we do in each
mode.
Overall this doesn't seem like the most satisfying approach for
covering compatibility testing in our standard commit testing, but
it's all we've got at the moment.
Allow functions with type `(()) -> T` to be passed in places where we
expect `() -> T`, but only for -swift-version 4 (for -swift-version 3
this already works due to other horrible things in CSSimplify.cpp).
We need to look at how we can help migrate these cases to
-swift-version 5, but in the meantime, but that is something we can
consider separately.
We inadvertantly allowed a function conversion for Swift 4 that we did
not intend to allow.
This commit adds an extremely narrow fix to continue to allow this for
-swift-verson 4 only.
Fixes rdar://problem/36875195 / https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-6837
Stop creating ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> so that we can remove it
from the type system.
Enable the code that generates disjunctions for Optional<T> and
rewrites expressions based on the original declared type being 'T!'.
Most of the changes supporting this were previously merged to master,
but some things were difficult to merge to master without actually
removing IUOs from the type system:
- Dynamic member lookup and dynamic subscripting
- Changes to ensure the bridging peephole still works
Past commits have attempted to retain as much fidelity with how we
were printing things as possible. There are some cases where we still
are not printing things the same way:
- In diagnostics we will print '?' rather than '!'
- Some SourceKit and Code Completion output where we print a Type
rather than Decl.
Things like module printing via swift-ide-test attempt to print '!'
any place that we now have Optional types that were declared as IUOs.
There are some diagnostics regressions related to the fact that we can
no longer "look through" IUOs. For the same reason some output and
functionality changes in Code Completion. I have an idea of how we can
restore these, and have opened a bug to investigate doing so.
There are some small source compatibility breaks that result from
this change:
- Results of dynamic lookup that are themselves declared IUO can in
rare circumstances be inferred differently. This shows up in
test/ClangImporter/objc_parse.swift, where we have
var optStr = obj.nsstringProperty
Rather than inferring optStr to be 'String!?', we now infer this to
be 'String??', which is in line with the expectations of SE-0054.
The fact that we were only inferring the outermost IUO to be an
Optional in Swift 4 was a result of the incomplete implementation of
SE-0054 as opposed to a particular design. This should rarely cause
problems since in the common-case of actually using the property rather
than just assigning it to a value with inferred type, we will behave
the same way.
- Overloading functions with inout parameters strictly by a difference
in optionality (i.e. Optional<T> vs. ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T>)
will result in an error rather than the diagnostic that was added
in Swift 4.1.
- Any place where '!' was being used where it wasn't supposed to be
allowed by SE-0054 will now treat the '!' as if it were '?'.
Swift 4.1 generates warnings for these saying that putting '!'
in that location is deprecated. These locations include for example
typealiases or any place where '!' is nested in another type like
`Int!?` or `[Int!]`.
This commit effectively means ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is no
longer part of the type system, although I haven't actually removed
all of the code dealing with it yet.
ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is is dead, long live implicitly
unwrapped Optional<T>!
Resolves rdar://problem/33272674.
Fix problem related to Swift 3 mode (with assertions),
since Swift 3 mode allows passing arguments with extra parens
to parameters which don't expect them, it should be supported
by "deep equality" types e.g. Optional<T>:
```swift
func foo(_: (() -> Void)?) {}
func bar() -> ((()) -> Void)? { return nil }
foo(bar) // This expression should compile in Swift 3 mode
```
Resolves: rdar://problem/35198459
There was an oversight in the exception that was added to SE-0110 to
maintain compatibility for closure arguments. We were not allowing
optional injection to happen for the closure being passed in, so things
like:
func test(_ fn: ((Int, Int))->()) {}
test { x, y in }
worked, but
func test(_ fn: (((Int, Int))->())?) {}
test { x, y in }
did not.
Fixes SR-5433 (rdar://problem/33239714).
The change to roll back a part of SE-0110 to allow multi-argument
functions to be passed in places where functions taking a tuple are
expected resulted in a regression in some cases where the fix would
strip off the last ParenType from single-argument functions.
Instead of stripping off parens from both function types we're trying to
match when they both have them, strip off none. This ensures that we
don't get summarily rejected in the nested matchTypes call by other
SE-0110-related code that bails if the two types do not have the same
"parenness".
Fixes rdar://problem/33043106 / SR-5387.
When trying to diagnose problems related to calls where
function is represented by a member of nominal type let's
attempt to be more cautious while type-checking function
expression without it's arguments, because it could produce
unrelated diagnostics.
Resolves: rdar://problem/32551313, rdar://problem/28456467, rdar://problem/31671195
If there are parameters missing in the closure declaration and
all of the present ones are anonymous let's emit a fix it suggesting
missing parameters.
Resolves: rdar://problem/32301091
When matching inputs of a function type, be sure to
strip off ParenType sugar so that we don't end up
with ParenTypes in associated type witnesses.
This fixes various issues with SE-0110.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32214649>.
Properly diagnose cases of function/subscript argument tuple
structuring/destructuring related by not limited to SE-0110.
Resolves: rdar://problem/31973368
* Give Sequence a top-level Element, constrain Iterator to match
* Remove many instances of Iterator.
* Fixed various hard-coded tests
* XFAIL a few tests that need further investigation
* Change assoc type for arrayLiteralConvertible
* Mop up remaining "better expressed as a where clause" warnings
* Fix UnicodeDecoders prototype test
* Fix UIntBuffer
* Fix hard-coded Element identifier in CSDiag
* Fix up more tests
* Account for flatMap changes
Swift 3 supported limited argument destructuring when it comes to
declaring (trailing) closures. Such behavior has been changed by
SE-0110. This patch aims to provide better error message as well
as fix-it (if structure of the expected and actual arguments matches)
to make the migration easier and disambiguate some of the common
mistakes.
Resolves: SR-4738, SR-4745, rdar://problem/31892961.
While diagnosing index expression associated with subscript call
`validateContextualType` didn't look through TupleType to identify
potential nullability of the contextual type related to generic
parameters.
Resolves: rdar://problem/31724211
This snippet type checks in Swift 4 mode, but not in Swift 3.
It used to work in Swift 3.0, so something broke when we
implemented SE-0110 and redid the Swift 3 mode emulation.
The prohibition in Swift 3.0 missed the case where the single-element tuple was wrapped in extra parens as the only argument of a function. We've ripped out parts of the type checker that try to cope with single-element tuples, and it would be risky and bug-prone to try to admit this code, so it's better to fix the ban than to try to accept the code, alas. Fixes SR-3788.
Swift 3.0 allowed constructing an enum or calling a function-typed
property with multiple arguments even when a single argument of tuple
type was expected. Emulate that in Swift 3 mode by wrapping in an
extra level of parentheses when the situation comes up.
Last vestiges of fallout from SE-0110. Hopefully last, anyway. A nice
follow-up to this commit might be to /warn/ in Swift 3 mode when this
happens.
rdar://problem/30171399
In Swift 3, we had a bug where you could provide argument labels
to a function call taking a single Any parameter, even if the
parameter did not have a label.
This mostly worked (with asserts off!) but in fact it would crash
in SILGen if you were calling an enum case constructor.
Since this 'feature' has been promoted from 'works on accident' to
'still a hack but guarded by Swift 3 mode and exists on purpose',
fix the crash, even though Swift 3 could not compile the code in
question.
Also add a Swift 3 mode check to the earlier SILGen hack, so that
when/if we remove Swift 3 mode it will be obvious that this code is
now dead too.
In Swift 3.0.1, argument labels are ignored when calling a function
having a single parameter of 'Any' type. That is, if we have:
func foo(_: Any) {}
Both of the following were accepted in a no-assert build (an assert
build would crash, but the GM builds of Xcode ship with asserts off):
foo(123)
foo(data: 123)
This behavior was fixed by 578e36a7e1,
but unfortunately we have to revert to the old behavior *and* defeat
the assertion when in Swift 3 mode.
Swift 4 mode still has the correct behavior, where the second call
'foo(data: 123)' produces a diagnostic.
Now, I have to pour myself a strong drink to forget this ever happened.
Fixes <rdar://problem/28952837>.
There's a general problem where a SubscriptExpr has an argument
that's a LoadExpr loading a tuple from an lvalue. For some reason
we don't construct the ParenExpr in this case, which confused
CSDiag.
Also, in Swift 3 mode, add a total hack to fudge things in
matchCallArguments() in the case where we erroneously lost
ParenType sugar.
Fix matchTypes() to be more careful about stripping off ParenType
sugar, in order to match the behavior outlined in SE-0110.
Note that the new logic only executes in Swift 4 mode; there's
no functional change here in Swift 3 mode.
This makes a second copy of the tuple_arguments test:
- Compatibility/tuple_arguments is a test for Swift 3, updated to
note differences with Swift 3.
- Constraints/tuple_arguments has been updated for the new Swift 4
mode behavior.
Fixes <rdar://problem/27383557>.
This reverts commit e172383e2f.
There were two problems with this commit:
- This was a source-breaking change and should have been feature-gated.
- It only addressed one narrow case of SE-0110.
Fixes <rdar://problem/28621719>.
Swift 3 shipped with some quirks surrounding the behavior
of argument matching when generic substitutions and tuples
are involved.
The new test attempts to comprehensively exercise this
behavior.
