* 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.
Allow an 'async' function to overload a non-'async' one, e.g.,
func performOperation(_: String) throws -> String { ... }
func performOperation(_: String) async throws -> String { ... }
Extend the scoring system in the type checker to penalize cases where
code in an asynchronous context (e.g., an `async` function or closure)
references an asychronous declaration or vice-versa, so that
asynchronous code prefers the 'async' functions and synchronous code
prefers the non-'async' functions. This allows the above overloading
to be a legitimate approach to introducing asynchronous functionality
to existing (blocking) APIs and letting code migrate over.
To better preserve source compatibility, teach the constraint
solver to try both the new forward scanning rule as well as the
backward scanning rule when matching a single, unlabeled trailing
closure. In the extreme case, where the unlabeled trailing closure
matches different parameters with the different rules, and yet both
produce a potential match, introduce a disjunction to explore both
possibilities.
Prefer solutions that involve forward scans to those that involve
backward scans, so we only use the backward scan as a fallback.
Introduce `SK_Hole` which is used to count a number of "holes" in
a given solution. It is used to distinguish solutions with fewer holes.
Also it makes it possible to check whether a solution has holes but
no fixes, which is an issue and such solution shouldn't be applied
to AST.
Introduce the notion of "one-way" binding constraints of the form
$T0 one-way bind to $T1
which treats the type variables $T0 and $T1 as independent up until
the point where $T1 simplifies down to a concrete type, at which point
$T0 will be bound to that concrete type. $T0 won't be bound in any
other way, so type information ends up being propagated right-to-left,
only. This allows a constraint system to be broken up in more
components that are solved independently. Specifically, the connected
components algorithm now proceeds as follows:
1. Compute connected components, excluding one-way constraints from
consideration.
2. Compute a directed graph amongst the components using only the
one-way constraints, where an edge A -> B indicates that the type
variables in component A need to be solved before those in component
B.
3. Using the directed graph, compute the set of components that need
to be solved before a given component.
To utilize this, implement a new kind of solver step that handles the
propagation of partial solutions across one-way constraints. This
introduces a new kind of "split" within a connected component, where
we collect each combination of partial solutions for the input
components and (separately) try to solve the constraints in this
component. Any correct solution from any of these attempts will then
be recorded as a (partial) solution for this component.
For example, consider:
let _: Int8 = b ? Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(17)) :
Builtin.one_way(int8Or16(42\
))
where int8Or16 is overloaded with types `(Int8) -> Int8` and
`(Int16) -> Int16`. There are two one-way components (`int8Or16(17)`)
and (`int8Or16(42)`), each of which can produce a value of type `Int8`
or `Int16`. Those two components will be solved independently, and the
partial solutions for each will be fed into the component that
evaluates the ternary operator. There are four ways to attempt that
evaluation:
```
[Int8, Int8]
[Int8, Int16]
[Int16, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
To test this, introduce a new expression builtin `Builtin.one_way(x)` that
introduces a one-way expression constraint binding the result of the
expression 'x'. The builtin is meant to be used for testing purposes,
and the one-way constraint expression itself can be synthesized by the
type checker to introduce one-way constraints later on.
Of these two, there are only two (partial) solutions that can work at
all, because the types in the ternary operator need a common
supertype:
[Int8, Int8]
[Int16, Int16]
Therefore, these are the partial solutions that will be considered the
results of the component containing the ternary expression. Note that
only one of them meets the final constraint (convertibility to
`Int8`), so the expression is well-formed.
Part of rdar://problem/50150793.
