This code as written is not sound and should not type check
for non-final classes conforming to SequenceType (eg, NSArray).
Instead, capture the base of the call from the preprocess closure
passed in. The closure is @noescape, so it should be equivalent.
ExtensibleCollectionType's operations can all be represented by the
primitive range replacement operation, so fold it into
RangeReplaceableCollectionType.
In addition, provide default implementations of
RangeReplaceableCollectionType's methods.
- New tests added for combinations of (static, generic) calls and
(default, custom) implementations.
- Mark free Swift functions as unavailable with a message to direct the
developer to the protocol methods.
- Mark ExtensibleCollectionType as available with a message added to
direct the developer to the right protocol.
rdar://problem/18220295
Swift SVN r29857
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
