Parse 'var [behavior] x: T', and when we see it, try to instantiate the property's
implementation in terms of the given behavior. To start out, behaviors are modeled
as protocols. If the protocol follows this pattern:
```
protocol behavior {
associatedtype Value
}
extension behavior {
var value: Value { ... }
}
```
then the property is instantiated by forming a conformance to `behavior` where
`Self` is bound to the enclosing type and `Value` is bound to the property's
declared type, and invoking the accessors of the `value` implementation:
```
struct Foo {
var [behavior] foo: Int
}
/* behaves like */
extension Foo: private behavior {
@implements(behavior.Value)
private typealias `[behavior].Value` = Int
var foo: Int {
get { return value }
set { value = newValue }
}
}
```
If the protocol requires a `storage` member, and provides an `initStorage` method
to provide an initial value to the storage:
```
protocol storageBehavior {
associatedtype Value
var storage: Something<Value> { ... }
}
extension storageBehavior {
var value: Value { ... }
static func initStorage() -> Something<Value> { ... }
}
```
then a stored property of the appropriate type is instantiated to witness the
requirement, using `initStorage` to initialize:
```
struct Foo {
var [storageBehavior] foo: Int
}
/* behaves like */
extension Foo: private storageBehavior {
@implements(storageBehavior.Value)
private typealias `[storageBehavior].Value` = Int
@implements(storageBehavior.storage)
private var `[storageBehavior].storage`: Something<Int> = initStorage()
var foo: Int {
get { return value }
set { value = newValue }
}
}
```
In either case, the `value` and `storage` properties should support any combination
of get-only/settable and mutating/nonmutating modifiers. The instantiated property
follows the settability and mutating-ness of the `value` implementation. The
protocol can also impose requirements on the `Self` and `Value` types.
Bells and whistles such as initializer expressions, accessors,
out-of-line initialization, etc. are not implemented. Additionally, behaviors
that instantiate storage are currently only supported on instance properties.
This also hasn't been tested past sema yet; SIL and IRGen will likely expose
additional issues.
When a dependent type is mapped into context, the result will either be
an archetype or a concrete type. The latter occurs if a same-type
constraint exists between the dependent type and the concrete type.
The logic to decide if a type should be passed directly or indirectly
was not handling this case if an interface type was passed down -- we
would just check if there was a class constraint present.
This resulted in mismatching conventions between an interface type and
its corresponding contextual type, which would trigger assertions.
Note that same-type constraints between generic parameters and concrete
types are still not supported for other reasons; the subject of the
constraint must still be an associated type of a generic parameter.
Fixes <rdar://problem/24687460>.
As part of this, use a different enum for parsed generic requirements.
NFC except that I noticed that ASTWalker wasn't visiting the second
type in a conformance constraint; fixing this seems to have no effect
beyond producing better IDE annotations.
This eliminates some minor overheads, but mostly it eliminates
a lot of conceptual complexity due to the overhead basically
appearing outside of its context.
Extend GenericSignature to be able to answer queries about the
requirements placed on dependent types, e.g, are the class-bound, to
what protocols must they conform, etc. Implement this using a
lazily-created ArchetypeBuilder on the canonical generic signature.
NFC and as-yet-untested; this is staging for reducing our dependence
on the "all archetypes" list.
Swift SVN r32340
GenericSignature's factory method determining whether the signature
was canonical based solely on whether the types in the parameters and
requirments were canonical. While that is currently true (for legacy
reasons), it is wrong: canonicalization also needs to canonicalize
requirements, including same-type requirements, as is currently done
in the canonical signature "for mangling". Move the "this is
canonical" dependency to the point where the canonical signature is
actually computed, so we can change the definition of canonical
signatures later.
While we're here, don't eagerly compute the canonical generic
signature in GenericSignature::getASTContext().
Swift SVN r32309
