The constraint takes two pack types and makes sure that their
reduced shapes are equal. This helps with diagnostics because
constraint has access to the original pack expansion pattern
types.
* Use fancy arrows (`→`) because they are distinct from and shorter than `->`,
and fancier.
* We have two ways of demarcating locators: `@ <locator>` and `[[<locator>]];`.
Stick to the first, which is shorter and clearer.
* 'attempting type variable' → 'attempting binding'. *Bindings* are attempted,
not type variables.
* `considering ->` → `considering:`. I think a colon is semantically more fit
and makes things easier to read if the considered constraint has arrows in its
description or types. It’s also shorter this way.
Introduce SingleValueStmtExpr, which allows the
embedding of a statement in an expression context.
This then allows us to parse and type-check `if`
and `switch` statements as expressions, gated
behind the `IfSwitchExpression` experimental
feature for now. In the future,
SingleValueStmtExpr could also be used for e.g
`do` expressions.
For now, only single expression branches are
supported for producing a value from an
`if`/`switch` expression, and each branch is
type-checked independently. A multi-statement
branch may only appear if it ends with a `throw`,
and it may not `break`, `continue`, or `return`.
The placement of `if`/`switch` expressions is also
currently limited by a syntactic use diagnostic.
Currently they're only allowed in bindings,
assignments, throws, and returns. But this could
be lifted in the future if desired.
Enable type checking support for explicitly specifying generic arguments to
a macro, e.g., `#stringify<Double>(1 + 2)`. To do so, introduce a new
kind of constraint that performs explicit argument matching against the
generic parameters of a macro only after the overload is chosen.
Fixes an oversight where `inout` -> C pointer conversion wasn't covered
by implementation of new pointer conversion semantics proposed by SE-0324.
Resolves: rdar://92583588
`SyntacticElement` represents a statement, pattern, declaration,
condition, or expression and could originate from i.e. a closure,
a function or a result builder body.
Insert an implicit conversion from pack types to tuples with equivalent parallel structure. That means
1) The tuple must have the same arity
2) The tuple may not have any argument labels
3) The tuple may not have any variadic or inout components
4) The tuple must have the same element types as the pack
Despite being otherwise disconnected from the
constraint system, it's possible for it to affect
how we type-check tuple matches in certain cases.
This is due to the fact that:
- It can have a lower type variable ID than an
opened generic parameter type, so becomes the
representative when merged with it. And because it
has a different locator, this can influence
binding prioritization.
- Tuple subtyping is broken, as it's currently a
*weaker* relationship than conversion.
Therefore, temporarily restore this bit of logic
for language versions < 6. If possible, we should
try and fix tuple subtying in Swift 6 mode to not
accept label mismatches, so that it's not more
permissive than tuple conversion.
rdar://85263844
FunctionInput relies on being able to represent
parameter lists as tuples, which won't be possible
once parameter flags are stripped from tuple types.
FunctionResult is reasonable, but is currently
unused.
Attempting to pre-compute a set of referenced type variables
upfront is incorrect because parameter(s) and/or result type
could be bound before conjunction is attempted. Let's compute
a set of referenced variables before each element gets attempted.
Elements have to be solved in isolation, so if conjunction were
to reference all of the variables referenced by its elements then
it would have to bring unrelated type variables into its scope.
It's similar to disjunction constraint but represents an "and"
relationship between its elements instead of "or", so all of the
elements have to produce a solution for conjunction constraint
to be considered solved successfully.
* [TypeResolver][TypeChecker] Add support for structural opaque result types
* [TypeResolver][TypeChecker] Clean up changes that add structural opaque result types
Conformance constraints could be transferred through conversions,
but that would also require checking implicit conversions
such as optional and pointer promotions for conformance is the
type itself doesn't conform, for that let's add a special constraint
`TransitivelyConformsTo`.
