* [TypeCheckConstraints] Adjusting cases where checked casts that cannot be determined statically were producing misleading warnings
* [tests] Adding regression tests for SR-13088
* [TypeCheckConstraints] Adjusting comment and adding an extra test case for SR13035
* [TypeCheckConstraints] Fixing typos in comments
* [AST] Moving implementation of isCollection from ConstraintSystem to AST TypeBase
* [TypeCheckConstraints] Adjusting logic to verify specific conformance to stdlib collection type before emit an downcast warning
* [TypeCheckConstraints] Creating new CheckedCastContextKind::CollectionElement to be able to verify special cases within typeCheckCheckedCast for collection elements
* [TypeCheckConstraints] Adjusting logic around generic substitution to check both subtype and supertype
* [Sema] Adding isKnownStdlibCollectionType and replacing all usages contraint system method
* [TypeChecker] Reverting fixes around array element types
* [TypeChecker] Abstract logic of check for conditional requirements on TypeChecker::couldDynamicallyConformToProtocol
* [TypeChecker] Ajdustinc can conformDynamically conform and adjust review comments
* [TypeChecker] Ajusting comments and fixing typos
* [TypeChecker] Adjusting existential and archetype logic to check inside couldDynamicConform
* [TypeChecker] Adjusting minor and adding existential check into couldDynamically conform.
* [TypeChecker] Adjusting comments
If the problem is related to an operator and argument is an enum
with associated values mention that conformances to `Equatable`
and `Comparable` are not synthesized in such cases.
Currently it's possible to have a type conflict between different
requirements deduced as the same type which leads to incorrect
diagnostics. To mitigate that let's adjust how "fixed" requirements
are stored - instead of using resolved type for the left-hand side,
let's use originating generic parameter type.
As part of the code completion redesign this new entry point is going
to replace use of:
- `typeCheckExpression`
- `getTypeOfExpressionWithoutApplying` (which could be removed)
and possibly other methods currently used to retrieve information
for code completion purposes.
Advantages of a new approach:
- Avoids mutating AST;
- Allows to avoid sub-expression type-checking;
- Allows code completion access to multiple solutions in ambiguous cases;
- Provides all possible solutions - valid and invalid (with holes);
- Allows code completion to easily access not only types but
overload choices and other supplimentary information associated
with each solution.
Generalize the code used to generate constraints and apply solutions to
PatternBindingDecls so that it is handled directly by the constaint
system and solution, respectively, rather than as part of the function
builder transform. No functionality change, but this is a cleaner
abstraction.
Rather than storing the record of each pattern binding entry's solution
application targets as part of an applied function builder, store them
within the constraint system and solution using a newly-generalized
form of SolutionApplicationTargetsKey.
Single-expression closures have always been traversed differently
from multi-statement closures. The former were traversed as if the
expression was their only child, skipping the BraceStmt and implicit
return, while the later was traversed as a normal BraceStmt.
Unify on the latter treatment, so that traversal
There are a few places where we unintentionally relied on this
expression-as-child behavior. Clean those up to work with arbitrary
closures, which is an overall simplification in the logic.
Introduce a new predicate, shouldTypeCheckInEnclosingExpression(), to
determine when the body of a closure should be checked as part of the
enclosing expression rather than separately, and use it in the various
places where "hasSingleExpressionBody()" was used for that purpose.
Introduce a statement visitor that applies a particular solution to
the body of a closure. This matches the mechanism used by function
builders (and is similar to how we handle expressions in general),
simplifying the logic for handling
conversion-to-void-returning-closures and
conversion-from-Never-returning-bodies. It is a stepping stone for
type inference of multi-statement closures.
Slim down CSApply.cpp by moving the logic for applying a solution to a
closure into CSClosure.cpp. Also, eliminate duplicated logic for applying
function builders to the body of a closure or function. This should
not change semantics at all.
The parser used to rewrite
if let x: T
into
if let x: T?
This transformation is correct at face value, but relied on being able
to construct TypeReprs with bogus source locations. Instead of having
the parser kick semantic analysis into shape, let's perform this
reinterpretation when we resolve if-let patterns in statement
conditions.
Annotate the covered switches with `llvm_unreachable` to avoid the MSVC
warning which does not recognise the covered switches. This allows us
to avoid a spew of warnings.
that allows arbitrary `label: {}` suffixes after an initial
unlabeled closure.
Type-checking is not yet correct, as well as code-completion
and other kinds of tooling.
Originally such accessors were only useful for `FailureDiagnostic` but
now since `ConstraintLocator` is anchored with `TypedNode` it makes sense
to make them universally accessible.
