This removes the totally lame diagnostic telling the user to wrap
their function in a closure.
Some exotic Objective-C metatype to AnyObject conversions are still
missing, and there aren't any executable tests yet. Both will be
addressed soon.
Swift SVN r31527
"unavoidable failure" path, along with Failure::DoesNotHaveNonMutatingMember and
just doing some basic disambiguation in CSDiags.
This provides some benefits:
- Allows us to plug in much more specific diagnostics for the existing "only has
mutating members" diagnostic, including producing notes for why the base expr
isn't mutable (see e.g. test/Sema/immutability.swift diffs).
- Corrects issues where we'd drop full decl name info for selector references.
- Wordsmiths diagnostics to not complain about "values of type Foo.Type" instead
complaining about "type Foo"
- Where before we would diagnose all failures with "has no member named", we now
distinguish between when there is no member, and when you can't use it. When you
can't use it, you get a vauge "cannot use it" diagnostic, but...
- This provides an infrastructure for diagnosing other kinds of problems (e.g.
trying to use a private member or a static member from an instance).
- Improves a number of cases where failed type member constraints would produce uglier
diagnostics than a different constraint failure would.
- Resolves a number of rdars, e.g. (and probably others):
<rdar://problem/20294245> QoI: Error message mentions value rather than key for subscript
Swift SVN r30715
get the same wording, fixing <rdar://problem/21964599> Different diagnostics for the same issue
While I'm in the area, remove some dead code.
Swift SVN r30713
Now for:
let req = NSURLRequest(URL: NSURL(string: "<some url>")!)?
instead of producing:
test.swift:2:58: error: could not find an overload for 'init' that accepts the supplied
we produce the correct diagnostic, with a fixit:
error: cannot use optional chaining on non-optional value of type 'NSURLRequest'
let req = NSURLRequest(URL: NSURL(string: "<some url>")!)?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
This also consolidates some existing diagnostics to improve their wording.
Swift SVN r30049
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
Fixes a crash when the user uses such a type. (Which is probably a
mistake--they probably meant to make the whole closure optional--but
that's another issue.)
rdar://problem/20163908
Swift SVN r26274
This re-applies r24987, reverted in r24990, with a fix for a spuriously-
introduced error: don't use a favored constraint in a disjunction to avoid
applying a fix. (Why not? Because favoring bubbles up, i.e. the
/disjunction/ becomes favored even if the particular branch is eventually
rejected.) This doesn't seem to affect the outcome, though: the other
branch of the disjunction doesn't seem to be tried anyway.
Finishes rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r25054
let x: Int? = 4 as Int // okay
let f: (Int) -> Void = { (x: Int?) -> Void in println(x) } // error!
As part of this, remove an invalid "protection" of value-to-optional
conversions that involve T? -> T??. Unfortunately, this results in an
ambiguity in the following code:
var z: Int?
z = z ?? 42
Both of our overloads for ?? here require one value-to-optional conversion,
and the overload preference isn't conclusive. (Turns out (T?, T) and
(U?, U?) can be unified as T=U or as T=U?.) The best thing to do would be
to take our solved T=Int binding into account, but the type checker isn't
set up to do that at the moment.
After talking to JoeP, I ended up just hardcoding a preference against
the (T?, T?) -> T? overload of ??. This is only acceptable because both
overloads have the same result, and I'll be filing another Radar to
remove this hack in the future.
Part of rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r25045
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
Previously the "as" keyword could either represent coercion or or forced
downcasting. This change separates the two notions. "as" now only means
type conversion, while the new "as!" operator is used to perform forced
downcasting. If a program uses "as" where "as!" is called for, we emit a
diagnostic and fixit.
Internally, this change removes the UnresolvedCheckedCastExpr class, in
favor of directly instantiating CoerceExpr when parsing the "as"
operator, and ForcedCheckedCastExpr when parsing the "as!" operator.
Swift SVN r24253
@objc methods, initializers, deinitializers, properties, and
subscripts all produce Objective-C methods. Diagnose cases where two
such entities (which may be of different kinds) produce the same
Objective-C method in the same class.
As a special exception, one can have an Objective-C method in an
extension that conflicts with an Objective-C method in the original
class definition, so long as the original class definition is from a
different model. This reflects the reality in Objective-C that the
category definition wins over the original definition, and is used in
at least one overlay (SpriteKit).
This is the first part of rdar://problem/18391046; the second part
involves checking that overrides are sane.
Swift SVN r23147
When we have a literal constraint on an optional type, and the
optional does not itself conform to the literal protocol, look through
the optional to determine whether its underlying type conforms to the
protocol. This essentially helps filter out dumb solutions that try
optional types where we should just be relying on the
value-to-optional conversion.
Should be NFC, since we would find the same solutions anyway.
Swift SVN r21918
This is the semantic change we need to eliminate ambiguities when
introducing the new ?? overload. There is a minor regression here with
curried method references, which is covered by <rdar://problem/18006008>.
Swift SVN r21173
A checked cast such as "x as String" or "x as? [String]", where x is of
class or Objective-C existential type, is now handled as a normal
checked cast rather than a Sema-generated call to the corresponding
witness. This eliminates a pile of hairy code from constraint
application and takes a step toward <rdar://problem/17408934>.
The part of the switch_objc.swift test I removed wasn't testing
anything useful; that's what <rdar://problem/17408934> is about.
Swift SVN r20970
There's a bit of a reshuffle of the ExplicitCastExpr subclasses:
- The existing ConditionalCheckedCastExpr expression node now represents
"as?".
- A new ForcedCheckedCastExpr node represents "as" when it is a
downcast.
- CoerceExpr represents "as" when it is a coercion.
- A new UnresolvedCheckedCastExpr node describes "as" before it has
been type-checked down to ForcedCheckedCastExpr or CoerceExpr. This
wasn't a strictly necessary change, but it helps us detangle what's
going on.
There are a few new diagnostics to help users avoid getting bitten by
as/as? mistakes:
- Custom errors when a forced downcast (as) is used as the operand
of postfix '!' or '?', with Fix-Its to remove the '!' or make the
downcast conditional (with as?), respectively.
- A warning when a forced downcast is injected into an optional,
with a suggestion to use a conditional downcast.
- A new error when the postfix '!' is used for a contextual
downcast, with a Fix-It to replace it with "as T" with the
contextual type T.
Lots of test updates, none of which felt like regressions. The new
tests are in test/expr/cast/optionals.swift.
Addresses <rdar://problem/17000058>
Swift SVN r18556
