includes a number of QoI things to help people write the correct code. I will commit
the testcase for it as the next patch.
The bulk of this patch is moving the stdlib, testsuite and validation testsuite to
the new syntax. I moved a few uses of "as" patterns back to as? expressions in the
stdlib as well.
Swift SVN r27959
...and similar for NSDictionary and NSSet.
For APIs that don't have a reason to distinguish "empty" and "absent" cases,
we encourage standardizing on "empty" and marking the result as non-optional
(or in Objective-C, __nonnull). However, there are system APIs whose
implementations currently do return nil rather than an empty collection
instance. In these cases, we recommend /changing/ the API to return the
appropriate "empty" value instead.
However, this can cause problems for backwards-deployment: while the API is
truly non-optional on system vN, a program may encounter a nil return value
if run on system vN-1. Objective-C can generally deal with this (especially
if the only thing you do is ask for the count or try to iterate over the
collection) but Swift can't. Therefore, we've decided to "play nice" and
accept nil return values for the collection types (NSArray, NSDictionary,
and NSSet) and implicitly treat them as "empty" values if they are the
result of an imported function or method.
Note that the current implementation has a hole regarding subscript getters,
since we still make an AST-level thunk for these in the Clang importer.
We can probably get rid of those these days, but I didn't want to touch
them at this point. It seems unlikely that there will be a subscript that
(a) is for a collection type, and (b) mistakenly returned nil in the past
rather than an empty collection.
There's another hole where an ObjC client calls one of these mistakenly-nil-
returning methods and then immediately hands the result off by calling a
Swift method. However, we have to draw the line somewhere.
(We're actually going to do this for strings as well; coming soon.)
rdar://problem/19734621
Swift SVN r26479
This changes 'if let' conditions to take general refutable patterns, instead of
taking a irrefutable pattern and implicitly matching against an optional.
Where before you might have written:
if let x = foo() {
you now need to write:
if let x? = foo() {
The upshot of this is that you can write anything in an 'if let' that you can
write in a 'case let' in a switch statement, which is pretty general.
To aid with migration, this special cases certain really common patterns like
the above (and any other irrefutable cases, like "if let (a,b) = foo()", and
tells you where to insert the ?. It also special cases type annotations like
"if let x : AnyObject = " since they are no longer allowed.
For transitional purposes, I have intentionally downgraded the most common
diagnostic into a warning instead of an error. This means that you'll get:
t.swift:26:10: warning: condition requires a refutable pattern match; did you mean to match an optional?
if let a = f() {
^
?
I think this is important to stage in, because this is a pretty significant
source breaking change and not everyone internally may want to deal with it
at the same time. I filed 20166013 to remember to upgrade this to an error.
In addition to being a nice user feature, this is a nice cleanup of the guts
of the compiler, since it eliminates the "isConditional()" bit from
PatternBindingDecl, along with the special case logic in the compiler to handle
it (which variously added and removed Optional around these things).
Swift SVN r26150
un-type-annotated AnyObject binding in "if let", and allows general
patterns in if-let.
This also reverts some unrelated QoI improvements that went in with those
patches, but I'll add those back next.
Swift SVN r25507
conditional context. There is no point diagnosing it here (just like a foreach loop) because
the if/let is just unwrapping the optional in the initializer expression.
Removing this requirement eliminates a bunch of extraneous type annotations in the testsuite.
Swift SVN r25370
Require 'as' when converting from Objective-C type to native type (but
continue to allow implicit conversion from native to Objective-C). This
conversion constraint is called ExplicitConversion; all implicit
conversions are covered by the existing Conversion constraint. Update
standard library and tests to match.
Swift SVN r24496
This function mixes the bits in the hash value, which improves Dictionary
performance for keys with bad hashes.
PrecommitBenchmark changes with greater than 7% difference:
``````````Dictionary2`,```1456.00`,```1508.00`,```1502.00`,````624.00`,````607.00`,````592.00`,`864.00`,``145.9%
``````````Dictionary3`,```1379.00`,```1439.00`,```1408.00`,````585.00`,````567.00`,````552.00`,`827.00`,``149.8%
````````````Histogram`,````850.00`,````849.00`,````851.00`,```1053.00`,```1049.00`,```1048.00`,`199.00`,``-19.0%
````````````````Prims`,```1999.00`,```2005.00`,```2018.00`,```1734.00`,```1689.00`,```1701.00`,`310.00`,```18.4%
``````````StrSplitter`,```2365.00`,```2334.00`,```2316.00`,```1979.00`,```1997.00`,```2000.00`,`337.00`,```17.0%
```````````````TwoSum`,```1551.00`,```1568.00`,```1556.00`,```1771.00`,```1741.00`,```1716.00`,`165.00`,```-9.6%
Regressions are in benchmarks that use `Int` as dictionary key: we are just
doing more work than previously (hashing an `Int` was an identity function).
rdar://17962402
Swift SVN r21142
This allows "obj.description!" to work on iOS when 'obj' is an AnyObject,
even though 'description' is an implicit property created by the importer.
Swift SVN r18149
Make these three types conform to the BridgedToObjectiveC
protocol, which is needed for array bridging. This is one part of
<rdar://problem/16533359>.
Because this must happen in the Foundation module, hack
swift_conformsToProtocol to look in the Foundation module for
conformances when it can't find them in the module corresponding to
the type. This is an egregious hack to an egregious hack, but it gets
us closer.
Swift SVN r15997
