Per the discussion in SR-1612, we don’t have a robust mechanism for
checking this and should warn about it.
Signed-off-by: Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi@gmail.com>
as a failure to convert the individual operand, since the operator
is likely conceptually generic in some way and the choice of any
specific overload is probably arbitrary.
Since we now fall back to a better-informed diagnostics point, take
advantage of this to generate a specialized diagnostic when trying to
compare values of function type with ===.
Fixes rdar://25666129.
This reverts commit 073f427942,
i.e. it reapplies 35ba809fd0 with a
test fix to expect an extra note in one place.
as a failure to convert the individual operand, since the operator
is likely conceptually generic in some way and the choice of any
specific overload is probably arbitrary.
Since we now fall back to a better-informed diagnostics point, take
advantage of this to generate a specialized diagnostic when trying to
compare values of function type with ===.
Fixes rdar://25666129.
wraps up SE-0004 and SE-0029.
I consider the diagnostic changes in Constraints/lvalues.swift to be
indicative of a QoI regression, but I'll deal with that separately.
set where all members of the set produce the same type, produce a more
specific error.
Before:
t.swift:4:17: error: no '&&' candidates produce the expected contextual result type 'Int'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
t.swift:4:17: note: produces result of type 'Bool'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
after:
t.swift:4:17: error: '&&' produces 'Bool', not the expected contextual result type 'Int'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
This improves the situation reported in https://twitter.com/_jlfischer/status/712337382175952896
Correctly determine callee closeness for func/ops that include generics
as part of more complicated parameters, i.e. tuple or closure args
containing generics as elements or args/results. Still only handling
single archetypes.
Also added code to check generic substitutions already made in the callee
parameters, which further helps diagnosis.
Producing single argument mismatches involving generics causes some
gross looking error messages if the generic mismatches get put into the
same closeness bucket as non-generic mismatches.
E.g. `var v71 = true + 1.0` used to produce `error: cannot convert
value of type 'Bool' to expected argument type 'Double’`, but would now
end up with `binary operator '+' cannot be applied to operands of type
'Bool' and 'Double’` `overloads for '+' exist with these partially
matching parameter lists: (Double, Double), (T, T.Stride), (T.Stride,
T)`.
Resolve this by adding CC_OneGenericArgumentNearMismatch and
CC_OneGenericArgumentMismatch, that are similar but ever so slightly
not as close as a mismatch involving non-generic functions. This gets
back the original error message in cases like the above, because there
is only one declaration of `+` which partially matches and is
non-generic, and the generic partial matches are now farther away.
But now single arg mismatches and nearness work for single-archetype
generic functions, as in the additions to the SR-69 test at the end of
deduction.swift.
In the specific case of sr-69, and in a bunch of other code where
errors arise involving generic function application, better type
constraint failure diagnoses are being masked by the overly
conservative implementation in evaluateCloseness(). If the actual arg
types didn’t exactly match the parameter types, we’d always diagnose a
non-specific arguments-don’t-match error instead of allowing discovery
of better errors from the constraint system.
This commit adds more cases where evaluateCloseness will return
CC_ExactMatch, specifically in application of functions with one or
more arguments of a single archetype, like `func min<T: Comparable>(T,
T) -> T`. It verifies that the actual argument type
isSubstitutableFor() the archetype, and that all such arguments are of
the same type. Anything more complicated than that still has the
previous behavior of not matching at all.
I think the final answer here ought to be to make a constraint system
with type variables for any archetypes, add appropriate constraints to
the actual args and then see if the system can solve all the argument
constraints at once. That’s because the next most complicated set of
things to handle in the stdlib are things like `func -<T:
Strideable>(lhs: T, rhs: T.Stride)` where generic argument types depend
on each other. I tried attacking that, but it was too big of a bite for
me to manage all at once. But there are FIXME’s here to try that again
at some point.
New tests for SR-69 are at the end of deduction.swift, and the rest of
the test changes are generally improved deduced diagnoses. I think the
changed diagnoses in materializable_restrictions.swift is the only one
which is worse instead of better, and that’s just because the previous
general message mentioned `inout` basically accidentally. Opportunity
for further improvement (a new diagnosis maybe) there.
Validation tests run and passed.
overloaded argument list mismatches. We printed them in simple cases
due to "Failure" detecting them in trivial situations. Instead of
doing that, let CSDiags do it, which allows us to pick things out of
overload sets and handle the more complex cases well.
This is a progression across the board except for a couple of cases
where we now produce "cannot convert value of type 'whatever' to
expected argument type '(arglist)'", this is a known issue that I'll
fix in a subsequent commit.
Previously we erroneously complained:
error: cannot invoke 'contains' with an argument list of type '(String)'
now we correctly complain:
error: unexpected non-void return value in void function
This enhances CSDiags to use "getTypeOfMember" when analyzing method
candidates that are applied to a known base type. Using it allows us to
substitute information about the base, resolving archetypes that exist in
subsequent argument positions. In the testcase, this means that we use
information about Set<String> to know that the argument to "contains" is a
String.
This allows us to generate much better diagnostics in some cases, and works
around some limitations in the existing stuff for handling unresolved
archetypes. One unfortunate change is the notes in Misc/misc_diagnostics.swift.
Because we don't track argument lists very well, we are flattening an argument
list that is actually ((Int,Int)) into (Int, Int) so we get a bogus looking
diagnostic. This was possible before this patch though, it is just one
more case that triggers the issue.
code had the effect of squishing the note that printed the overload candidate
set for the operators in question. While these are not generally helpful given
how many overloads we have of (e.g.) the + operator, it doesn't do us any good
to have special cases like this, because methods can have tons of overloads as
well.
call expression onto a callee when it was a binary expression. Doing this
requires improving the diagnostics for when the contextual result type is
incompatible with all candidates, but that is general goodness all around.
This fixes:
<rdar://problem/22333090> QoI: Propagate contextual information in a call to operands
and improves a number of diagnostics where the problem is that an operator
is used in a context that expects a type that it cannot produce.
Swift SVN r31891
- 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
forced conversion to "_ -> T" if it will refine the type otherwise found by
doing a non-contextual type check. This allows us to diagnose calls to
non-function values with more specificity, e.g. adding another case were we
recommend "do" when using bare braces.
Swift SVN r31726
This includes a few changes:
- Enhance diagnoseGeneralConversionFailure to not ignore constraints that are fully solved by
CSDiags' heuristics.
- Enhance dictionary/array literals diagnostics to handle non-compliance to their literal
protocols with a specific and custom error message.
- Add specific QoI for turning accidental use of array literals in dictionary context into
the right dictionary syntax (with a fixit).
Swift SVN r31696
use that contextual type to guide typechecking of the callee. This allows us to
propagate that type through generic constraints effectively, making us produce
much more useful diagnostics within closures taking methods like "map" (for
example).
This fixes:
<rdar://problem/20491794> QoI closures: Error message does not tell me what the problem is
Specifically, running the testcase:
enum Color { case Unknown(description: String) }
let xs: (Int, Color) = [1,2].map({ ($0, .Unknown("")) })
produces: error: cannot convert call result type '[_]' to expected type '(Int, Color)'
Changing that to:
let xs: [(Int, Color)] = [1,2].map({ ($0, .Unknown("")) })
produces: error: missing argument label 'description:' in call
... with a fixit to introduce the label.
This also fixes most of 22333090, but we're only using this machinery for CallExprs
so far, not for operators yet.
Swift SVN r31484
automatically pass down TypeCheckExprFlags::AllowUnresolvedTypeVariables
IFF we have no contextual type. This gives us UnresolvedTypes in more cases,
which improves diagnostics in various situations, and also simplifies
CSDiag. The change to misc_diagnostics.swift is a particularly nice progression.
Swift SVN r31406
Now we can propagate contextual types through collection literals even when they are generic, producing
specific diagnostics for elements within them.
Swift SVN r31327
When diagnosing failure to typecheck a binary '~=' expression that was
synthesized when typechecking an expression pattern, offer a message
that describes the failure more helpfully.
<rdar://problem/21995744> QoI: Binary operator '~=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'String' and 'String?'
Swift SVN r31286
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
which we have a contextual type that was the failure reason. These are a bit
longer but also more explicit than the previous diagnostics.
Swift SVN r30669
- Improve handling of if_expr in a couple of ways: teach constraint simplification
about IfThen/IfElse and teach CSDiags about the case when the cond expr doesn't match
BooleanType. This is rarely necessary, but CSDiags is all about cornercases, and this
does fix a problem in a testcase.
- Be a bit more specific about the constraint failure kind (e.g. say subtype) and when
we have a protocol conformance failure, emit a specific diagnostic about it, instead of
just saying that the types aren't convertible.
Swift SVN r30650
detailed analysis of callees, which give us overload sets in more cases,
producing notes more consistently, and producing much better diagnostics
for the curried cases in test/Constraints/diagnostics.swift.
This also allows us to eliminate getCalleeName, which simplifies things
in CSDiags.
Swift SVN r30491
we can start taking advantage of ambiguously typed subexpressions in CSDiags. We
start by validating the callee function of ApplyExprs, which substantially improves
our abilities to generate precise diagnostics about malformed calls.
This is the minimal introduction of this concept to CSDiags, a lot of refactoring
is yet to come, however, this is enough to resolve:
<rdar://problem/21080030> Bad diagnostic for invalid method call in boolean expression
<rdar://problem/21784170> Incongruous `unexpected trailing closure` error in `init` function which is cast and called without trailing closure.
one of the testcases from:
<rdar://problem/20789423> Unclear diagnostic for multi-statement closure with no return type
and a bunch of other places where we got weird "unexpected trailing closure"
diagnostics that made no sense. As usual, it is two steps forward and one step back,
as this exposed some other weird latent issues like:
<rdar://problem/21900971> QoI: Bogus conversion error in generics case
Swift SVN r30429
argument list for a CallExpr instead of matching a gang of typevartypes against them.
This allows us to produce better matches in some cases.
Swift SVN r30065
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
