Add logic to `matchTypes` to insert an implicit conversion to/from
CGFloat type when two nominal types are matched and one of them is
of `CGFloat` type.
To support implicit conversion to/from CGFloat type we need to:
- Reference an `init` member on the right-hand side type (either
CGFloat if we are converting to it, or compatible type if from).
- Add a `ApplicableFunction` constraint to model an implicit
call to previously referenced initializer with an argument
of left-hand side type.
Currently `getFunctionArgApplyInfo` expects a locator with `ApplyArgToParam`
element to identify location of the argument. `InOutExpr` could only be used
in argument positions but it doesn't have the same locator format as non-inout
arguments, so `getFunctionArgApplyInfo` needs to do some digging in the AST
to retrieve that information.
Resolves: rdar://75146811
A lot of operators (and most likely regular functions a well) have
overloads that accept i.e. a generic parameter that conforms to
`StringProtocol`, so the best fix in situations when argument is
a raw representable type would be to check whether `.rawValue`
conforms to the expected protocol and use it if so.
Resolves rdar://problem/75367157
If member has been bound before the base and the base was
incorrect at that (e.g. fallback to default `Any` type),
then we need to re-activate all of the constraints
associated with this member reference otherwise some of
the constraints could be left unchecked in inactive state.
This is especially important for key path expressions because
`key path` constraint can't be retired until all components
are simplified.
Resolves: SR-13364
Resolves: rdar://66706980
Resolves: rdar://74711236
New name is `isInKeyPathComponent` since it's implemeneted as a
check for presence of `KeyPathComponent` element in the locator
that covers every sub-element contained in a key path component
as well.
Instead of assuming that there is a mismatch between context and
result of the optional chain, let's actually verify that optional
evaluation expression does have a type before recording a fix.
Resolves: rdar://74696023
`simplifyAppliedOverloads(Constraint *, ...)` wouldn't filter choices
based on labels unless it finds recorded labels in the constraint system
based on the provided locator. `addOverloadSet` used incorrect locator
when calling `simplifyAppliedOverloads` which means that this call was
effectively a no-op.
Since labels are considered part of the name, mismatches in labeling
should be invalidate overload choices. Let's prefer an overload with
correct labels but incorrect types over the one with incorrect labels.
This also means that it's possible to restore performance optimizations
related to early filtering in diagnostic mode, which is important for
deeply nested code i.e. SwiftUI views.
The existing overloading rules strongly prefer async functions within
async contexts, and synchronous functions in synchronous contexts.
However, when there are other differences in the
signature, particularly parameters of function type that differ in
async vs. synchronous, the overloading rule would force the use of the
synchronous function even in cases where the synchronous function
would be better. An example:
func f(_: (Int) -> Int) { }
func f(_: (Int) async -> Int) async { }
func g(_ x: Int) -> Int { -x }
func h() async {
f(g) // currently selects async f, want to select synchronous f
}
Effect the semantics change by splitting the "sync/async mismatch"
score in the constraint system into an "async in sync mismatch" score
that is mostly disqualifying (because the call will always fail) and a
less-important score for "sync used in an async context", which also
includes conversion from a synchronous function to an asynchronous
one. This way, only synchronous functions are still considered within
a synchronous context, but we get more natural overloading behavior
within an asynchronous context. The end result is intended to be
equivalent to what one would get with reasync:
func f(_: (Int) async -> Int) async { ... }
Addresses rdar://74289867.
Currently bindings where inferred on every `bindTypeVariable` call,
but that's wasteful because not all binds are always correct. To
avoid unnecessary inference traffic let's wait until re-activated
constraints are simplified and notify binding inference about new
fixed type only if all of them are successful.
when it has property wrapper parameters.
The property wrapper type will be replaced with either the wrapped-value
or projected-value type, depending on the argument label/parameter name,
and CSApply will build a thunk to construct the property wrapper and call
the function.
Instead of requiring result type of the member to conform to declaring protocol,
as originally proposed by SE-0299, let's instead require `Self` to be bound to
some concrete type in extension that declares a static member.
This would make sure that:
1. Members are only visible on a particular type;
2. There is no ambiguity regarding what base of the member chain is going to be.
If it has been established that member found via static member
lookup on protocol metatype doesn't have correct result type,
chain's result type the should be treated as a hole.
Produce a tailored diagnostic when it has been established that
base type of a static member reference on protocol metatype doesn't
conform to a required protocol.
The first type represents a result of an unresolved member chain,
and the second type is its base type. This constraint acts almost
like `Equal` but also enforces following semantics:
- It's possible to infer a base from a result type by looking through
this constraint, but it's only solved when both types are bound.
- If base is a protocol metatype, this constraint becomes a conformance
check instead of an equality.
Since it's now possible to refer to static members declared on a protocol
metatype if result type conforms to the protocol we need to adjust failure
detection to identify that conformance failure means and invalid reference
in certain situations.
Since it's now possible to infer base type of an unresolved member
reference to be a protocol type we need to adjust `matchTypes` to
check conformance instead of type equality between base (represented
by a protocol) and chain's concrete result type.
