instead of the pre-typechecked type and the referenced decl in the AST
so that we can suggests all overloads even if it happen to be
typechecked to a method. For example
struct MyType {
func foo() {}
func foo(_ int: Int) {}
func foo(name: String, value: String) {}
}
func test(val: MyType) {
value.foo(#^COMPLETE^#)
}
In this case, the call is typechecked to 'MyType.foo(_:)', but we want
to suggest all overloads.
rdar://problem/59285399
This was due to us unconditionally setting the referenced decl to be the decl
referenced by the ApplyExpr's function, when we should only do that for
SelfApplyExprs. This caused a crash for calls returning a function type due to
a mismatch between the resulting type (the function type the applied function
returns) vs the referenced decl signature (the signature of the applied
function itself).
Resolves rdar://problem/53034130.
The parsed expression may be wrapped with various implicit expressions.
For example, if the expression is only element in array literal, it's
wrapped with `(arrayLiteral: <expr>)`.
When completing in the only expression of closure, use the return type
of the closure as the type context for the code-completion. However,
since code-completion may be on an incomplete input, we only use the
return type to improve the quality of the result, not to mark it
invalid, since (a) we may add another statement afterwards, or (b) if
the context type is Void it doesn't need to match the value.
Introduce stored property default argument kind
Fix indent
Assign nil to optionals with no initializers
Don't emit generator for stored property default arg
Fix problem with rebase
Indentation
Serialize stored property default arg text
Fix some tests
Add missing constructor in test
Print stored property's initializer expression
cleanups
preserve switch
complete_constructor
formatting
fix conflict
There were 2 functions to output argument list. Consolidate them and
consistently use it from every call like production (i.e. function call,
constructor call, enum with associated values, subscript)
Instead of re-typechecking parsed expression, find typechecked
expression that corresponds to the parsed expression from the
typechecked decl context, because the sub expressions of the parsed
expression can be weirdly mutated/replaced by decl context typechecking.
rdar://problem/48141174
Semantically, these are not superclass/refined-protocol members.
If I have a generic parameter <T : P & Q>, then when looking at
a value of type T, members of P and Q are at the same "level" as
if I had a value of type (P & Q).
For:
class MyClass {
func foo(x: SomeType)
func foo(x: OtherType)
}
func test(obj: MyClass) {
obj.foo(x: <HERE>)
}
Type checker doesn't keep overloaded choices for 'obj.foo' in the AST
after typechecking. Code completion need to lookup members to collect
possible parameter types.
At the time this logic was introduced in 8f83ca67, `<expr>.<keyword>` wasn't
allowed. Now that SE-0071 has been implemented, this logic doesn't provide any
positive effects.
The patch that nailed down our semantics here missed an additional case that
required a compatibility hack: a property on a generic type and a same-named one
in an (unconstrained) extension:
struct Foo<T> {
var x: Int { return 0 }
}
extension Foo {
var x: Bool { return false }
}
Fixes rdar://problem/40685642.
Currently we only give subscripts and var decls custom overload types if they're in generic extensions. However, because we give them no custom overload type in any other case, we don't detect for example a conflict with a previous declaration in the body of the extended type.
This commit changes the overload type logic such that properties and subscripts are always given custom overload types, which is determined by:
- The interface type of the decl (for subscripts only; as variables cannot be overloaded by type)
- The 'self' type of the context, if any
- The generic signature of the context, if any
Additionally, this commit adds a new `swift::conflicting` overload to ensure that different declarations always conflict even if their overload types are different.
Resolves SR-7249, SR-7250 & SR-7251.
Stop creating ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> so that we can remove it
from the type system.
Enable the code that generates disjunctions for Optional<T> and
rewrites expressions based on the original declared type being 'T!'.
Most of the changes supporting this were previously merged to master,
but some things were difficult to merge to master without actually
removing IUOs from the type system:
- Dynamic member lookup and dynamic subscripting
- Changes to ensure the bridging peephole still works
Past commits have attempted to retain as much fidelity with how we
were printing things as possible. There are some cases where we still
are not printing things the same way:
- In diagnostics we will print '?' rather than '!'
- Some SourceKit and Code Completion output where we print a Type
rather than Decl.
Things like module printing via swift-ide-test attempt to print '!'
any place that we now have Optional types that were declared as IUOs.
There are some diagnostics regressions related to the fact that we can
no longer "look through" IUOs. For the same reason some output and
functionality changes in Code Completion. I have an idea of how we can
restore these, and have opened a bug to investigate doing so.
There are some small source compatibility breaks that result from
this change:
- Results of dynamic lookup that are themselves declared IUO can in
rare circumstances be inferred differently. This shows up in
test/ClangImporter/objc_parse.swift, where we have
var optStr = obj.nsstringProperty
Rather than inferring optStr to be 'String!?', we now infer this to
be 'String??', which is in line with the expectations of SE-0054.
The fact that we were only inferring the outermost IUO to be an
Optional in Swift 4 was a result of the incomplete implementation of
SE-0054 as opposed to a particular design. This should rarely cause
problems since in the common-case of actually using the property rather
than just assigning it to a value with inferred type, we will behave
the same way.
- Overloading functions with inout parameters strictly by a difference
in optionality (i.e. Optional<T> vs. ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T>)
will result in an error rather than the diagnostic that was added
in Swift 4.1.
- Any place where '!' was being used where it wasn't supposed to be
allowed by SE-0054 will now treat the '!' as if it were '?'.
Swift 4.1 generates warnings for these saying that putting '!'
in that location is deprecated. These locations include for example
typealiases or any place where '!' is nested in another type like
`Int!?` or `[Int!]`.
This commit effectively means ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is no
longer part of the type system, although I haven't actually removed
all of the code dealing with it yet.
ImplicitlyUnwrappedOptional<T> is is dead, long live implicitly
unwrapped Optional<T>!
Resolves rdar://problem/33272674.
Redeclaration checking was validating all declarations with the same
base name as the given declaration (and in the same general nominal
type), even when it was trivial to determine that the declarations
could not be conflicting. Separate out the easy structural checks
(based on kind, full name, instance vs. non-instance member, etc.) and
perform those first, before validation.
Fixes SR-6558, a case where redeclaration checking caused some
unnecessary recursion in the type checker.
Constructor call patterns already get a real priority, but because of
the way we do function call patterns we don't have enough information,
and previously we were setting it to "expression specific", which is
unnecessarily high, particularly since functions (unlike inits) have
other better ways to code-complete already.
rdar://31113161
When completing
Foo(<here>
We will now provide
bar: <#value#>
instead of
bar: <#value#>)
Inserting the rparen caused some problems in practice:
* the old behaviour optimized for typing Foo(<complete> instead of
Foo(<complete>), which can conflict with user behaviours or ...
* in editors with automatic brace-matching, we often conflicted with the
editor, leading to extraneous closing parens
And in general, it is much more predictable for tooling to either insert
matching ( and ) or to not insert either. While this change may not be
ideal For users of editors that do not do automatic brace-matching, I
believe it is still better overall to have to type a missing paren than
to have to delete an extraneous one.
rdar://31113161
