Opaque return types are special type declarations that have it
own nested generic signature. Thus, given this:
```
protocol P<A> { associatedtype A: ~Copyable }
func f<T: ~Copyable>() -> some P<T> {}
```
The generic signature for f is <T where T Escapable>, and
for the opaque return type, its nested signature ends up as
```
<X where X: P, X.A == T>
```
With SE-503, we will now also expand a default for the suppressed
primary associated type, so the signature after expansion becomes
```
<X where X: P, X.A == T, X.A: Copyable>
```
It would be smarter to effectively have this rule
```
X.A == T, T: ~Copyable
----------------------
X.A: ~Copyable
```
where we infer the inverse on X.A to cancel-out the
expanded default X.A: Copyable. We already do this for
two in-scope type parameters, and it would be better if
we did it if one side was out-of-scope, but that would
be source-breaking to do in general.
In the case of opaque return types, the fact that
it has a nested generic signature seems more an
artifact of the implementation. There also is little
risk of source break, as the only kinds of same-type
requirements that can appear are from parameterized
protocol type.
The experimental suppressed associated types prior to
SE-503 wouldn't be broken by this change, as they do
not infer defaults that need suppression, and we only
filter-out requirements from defaults expansion, rather
than explicitly-written ones.
rdar://175500824
There's a need for more control over how default requirements
for conformance to Copyable/Escapable are expanded, and
subsequently how inverses are applied or inferred to cancel-out
those defaults.
The pattern of `/*applyInverses*/BOOL` is insufficient, so this
is a refactoring to grow that into a proper type that carries
an option that can be used in some future scenario about inferring
inverses for opaque return types.
The generic parameter at the root of a DependentMemberType is
the main thing we care about in terms of the scoping rule.
We have a check for ineffective / invalid inverses in a later
phase, so if the suppression on the type member was wrong then
we should still raise an error about it.
This is similar to SuppressedAssociatedTypes, but infers
default requirements when primary associated types of
protocols are suppressed. This defaulting for the primary
associated types happens in extensions of the protocol,
along with generic parameters, whenever a source-written
requirement states a conformance requirement for the protocol.
Thus, the current scheme for this defaulting is a simplistic,
driven by source-written requirements, rather than facts
that are inferred while building generic signatures.
Defaults are not expanded for infinitely many associated types.
rdar://135168163
Enhance the logic in `applyInverses` to also take into account same-type constraints spelled in
the generic signature, so that same-type-constraining a type parameter to a type that is itself
not `Copyable` or `Escapable` suppresses the default application of those constraints on the
type parameter. Fixes rdar://147757973.
Kavon Farvardin
Anthony Latsis
Joe Groff