When forming a specialized protocol conformance, we substitute into the
conditional requirements. Allow this substitution to look into the module
to find conformances, which might be required to accurately represented
the requirements. Otherwise, we can silently end up dropping them.
We should rethink this notion of eagerly substituting conditional
requirements, and consider whether clients should always handle this
substitution. For now, fixes rdar://problem/35837054.
Allow conformance lookup in module context for conditional
Conditional conformances aren't quite ready yet for Swift 4.1, so
introduce the flag `-enable-experimental-conditional-conformances` to
enable conditional conformaces, and an error when one declares a
conditional conformance without specifying the flag.
Add this flag when building the standard library (which will vend
conditional conformances) and to all of the tests that need it.
Fixes rdar://problem/35728337.
Rather than wantonly dropping the conditional requirements when checking
for type erasure, add them in the same way we do for (e.g.) conformance
checking for generics. Fixes rdar://problem/35480860.
Substitute the type arguments of the conforming type into the conditional
requirements of the specialized conformance, so they reflect the specific
requirements of the specialized conformance.
Fixes rdar://problem/34944286.
Rather than storing contextual types in the type witnesses and associated
conformances of NormalProtocolConformance, store only interface types.
@huonw did most of the work here, and @DougGregor patched things up to
complete the change.
