SE-0072 took implicit bridging conversions away, which regressed the ability to express NSDictionaries as dictionary literals and index them using literal keys. Address this by changing the signature of init(dictionaryLiteral:) to use Hashable and Any, and by replacing the subscript from Objective-C with one using _Hashable that does the bridging on the user's behalf. This largely restores the QoI of working with NS collections.
One last bit of SE-0072. We shouldn't fall back to bridged classes in the absence of type context for literals anymore. By itself, this kind of hoses the use of literals with NS types, but I think we can get most of the QoI back with overlay changes I plan to propose following this.
Previously, the only version of the functions that accepted values was the one that implicitly wraps them into Optionals. This generated a confusing error message when the assert failed. Having a separate overload that accepts non-optional types ensures that the correct description is printed when the assert fails.
When an assertion fails due to an Objective-C exception, that should be
treated as an unexpected failure, not an expected failure.
Addresses rdar://problem/24114025.
When an assertion expression throws an error, treat that as an
unexpected failure of the assertion.
Also generate the failure message for the error directly in the overlay,
rather than routing through _XCTFailureDescription, to avoid revlock
between the overlay and XCTest.framework's implementation.
Addresses rdar://problem/23789893.
Add an assertion that can be used to check that an expression throws an
error, and if it does to run a block against that error which may
contain further checks.
Addresses rdar://problem/23789904.
This reflects the fact that the attribute's only for compiler-internal use, and isn't really equivalent to C's asm attribute, since it doesn't change the calling convention to be C-compatible.
At some point I want to propose a revised model for exports, but for now
just mark that support for '@exported' is still experimental and subject
to change. (Thanks, Max.)
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
The rule changes are as follows:
* All functions (introduced with the 'func' keyword) have argument
labels for arguments beyond the first, by default. Methods are no
longer special in this regard.
* The presence of a default argument no longer implies an argument
label.
The actual changes to the parser and printer are fairly simple; the
rest of the noise is updating the standard library, overlays, tests,
etc.
With the standard library, this change is intended to be API neutral:
I've added/removed #'s and _'s as appropriate to keep the user
interface the same. If we want to separately consider using argument
labels for more free functions now that the defaults in the language
have shifted, we can tackle that separately.
Fixes rdar://problem/17218256.
Swift SVN r27704
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
The standard library has grown significantly, and we need a new
directory structure that clearly reflects the role of the APIs, and
allows future growth.
See stdlib/{public,internal,private}/README.txt for more information.
Swift SVN r25876
