When a closure is provided with a contextual type that has isolated
parameters, infer that the corresponding closure parameter is "isolated".
Fixes rdar://83732479.
The current IUO design always forms a disjunction
at the overload reference, for both:
- An IUO property `T!`, forming `$T := T? or T`
- An IUO-returning function `() -> T!`, forming `$T := () -> T? or () -> T`
This is simple in concept, however it's suboptimal
for the latter case of IUO-returning functions for
a couple of reasons:
- The arguments cannot be matched independently of
the disjunction
- There's some awkwardness when it comes e.g wrapping
the overload type in an outer layer of optionality
such as `(() -> T!)?`:
- The binding logic has to "adjust" the correct
reference type after forming the disjunction.
- The applicable fn solving logic needs a special
case to handle such functions.
- The CSApply logic needs various hacks such as
ImplicitlyUnwrappedFunctionConversionExpr to
make up for the fact that there's no function
conversion for IUO functions, we can only force
unwrap the function result.
- This lead to various crashes in cases where
we we'd fail to detect the expr and peephole
the force unwrap.
- This also lead to crashes where the solver
would have a different view of the world than
CSApply, as the former would consider an
unwrapped IUO function to be of type `() -> T`
whereas CSApply would correctly see the overload
as being of type `() -> T?`.
To remedy these issues, IUO-returning functions no
longer have their disjunction formed at the overload
reference. Instead, a disjunction is formed when
matching result types for the applicable fn
constraint, using the callee locator to determine
if there's an IUO return to consider. CSApply then
consults the callee locator when finishing up
applies, and inserts the force unwraps as needed,
eliminating ImplicitlyUnwrappedFunctionConversionExpr.
This means that now all IUO disjunctions are of the
form `$T := T? or T`. This will hopefully allow a
further refactoring away from using disjunctions
and instead using type variable binding logic to
apply the correct unwrapping.
Fixes SR-10492.
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.
Previously we were introducing a type variable
to mark a constructor's parameter list as
`TVO_PrefersSubtypeBinding`. Unfortunately this
relies on representing the parameter list as a
tuple, which will no longer be properly supported
once param flags are removed from tuple types.
Move the logic into CSRanking such that we pick up
and compare the parameter lists when comparing
overload bindings. For now, this still relies on
comparing the parameter lists as tuples, as there's
some subtle tuple subtyping rules that could
potentially affect source compatibility here, but
at least we can explicitly strip the parameter
flags and localise the hack to CSRanking rather
than exposing it as a constraint.
Use this new element to represent the overload type
for a constructor call, and have it store a bit
indicating whether the call is for a short-form
`X(...)` or self-delegating `self.init(...)` call.
A contextual purpose for a sequence expression associated with
`for-in` statement, that decays into a `ConformsTo` constraint
to a `Sequence` or `AsyncSequence` protocol.
Note that CTP_ForEachSequence is almost identical to CTP_ForEachStmt
but the meaning of latter is overloaded, so to avoid breaking solution
targets I have decided to add a new purpose for now.
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.
A single paren pattern becomes a labeled tuple pattern
e.g. `case .test(let value):` should be able to match
`case test(result: Int)`. Note that it also means that:
`cast test(result: (String, Int))` would be matched against
e.g. `case .test((let x, let y))` but that fails during
pattern coercion (behavior consistent with what happens in
`TypeCheckPattern`).
