Also remove mention of the word “contextual” type from the diagnostic
that rewrites array literals into dictionary literals and scale back
the scope of the diagnostic. This method was catching and
mis-diagnosing too many errors that could better be handled by invalid
conversion diagnostics.
When matching inputs of a function type, be sure to
strip off ParenType sugar so that we don't end up
with ParenTypes in associated type witnesses.
This fixes various issues with SE-0110.
Fixes <rdar://problem/32214649>.
Properly diagnose cases of function/subscript argument tuple
structuring/destructuring related by not limited to SE-0110.
Resolves: rdar://problem/31973368
* Give Sequence a top-level Element, constrain Iterator to match
* Remove many instances of Iterator.
* Fixed various hard-coded tests
* XFAIL a few tests that need further investigation
* Change assoc type for arrayLiteralConvertible
* Mop up remaining "better expressed as a where clause" warnings
* Fix UnicodeDecoders prototype test
* Fix UIntBuffer
* Fix hard-coded Element identifier in CSDiag
* Fix up more tests
* Account for flatMap changes
Specialize and improve the "downcast only unwraps optionals"
diagnostic to provide specific diagnostics + Fix-Its for the various
casts of forced cast, conditional cast, and "isa" check. Specifically:
* With a forced cast, customize the diagnostic. We still insert the
appropriate number of !'s, but now we remove the 'as! T' (if an
implicit conversion would suffice) or replace the 'as!' with 'as'
(if we still need a bridge)
* With a conditional cast, only emit a diagnostic if we're removing
just one level of optional. In such cases, we either have a no-op
(an implicit conversion would do) or we could just use 'as' to the
optional type, so emit a customized warning to do that. If we are
removing more than one level of optional, don't complain:
conditional casts can remove optionals. Add the appropriate Fix-Its
here.
* With an 'is' expression, only emit a diagnostic if we're removing
just one level of optional. In this case, the 'is' check is
equivalent to '!= nil'. Add a Fix-It for that.
Across the board, reduce the error to a warning. These are
semantically-well-formed casts, it's just that they could be written
better.
Fixes rdar://problem/28856049 and rdar://problem/22275685.
Previously, bridging conversions were handled as a form of "explicit
conversion" that was treated along the same path as normal
conversions in matchTypes(). Historically, this made some
sense---bridging was just another form of conversion---however, Swift
now separates out bridging into a different kind of conversion that is
available only via an explicit "as". This change accomplishes a few
things:
* Improves type inference around "as" coercions. We were incorrectly
inferring type variables of the "x" in "x as T" in cases where a
bridging conversion was expected, which cause some type inference
failures (e.g., the SR-3319 regression).
* Detangles checking for bridging conversions from other conversions,
so it's easier to isolate when we're applying a bridging
conversion.
* Explicitly handle optionals when dealing with bridging conversions,
addressing a number of problems with incorrect diagnostics, e.g.,
complains about "unrelated type" cast failures that would succeed at
runtime.
Addresses rdar://problem/29496775 / SR-3319 / SR-2365.
From the Swift documentation:
"If you define an optional variable without providing a default value,
the variable is automatically set to nil for you."
This reverts commit dc24c2bd34.
Turns out Chris fixed the build but when I was looking at the bots, his fix had
not been tested yet, so I thought the tree was still red and was trying to
revert to green.
Per the discussion in SR-1612, we don’t have a robust mechanism for
checking this and should warn about it.
Signed-off-by: Robert Widmann <devteam.codafi@gmail.com>
as a failure to convert the individual operand, since the operator
is likely conceptually generic in some way and the choice of any
specific overload is probably arbitrary.
Since we now fall back to a better-informed diagnostics point, take
advantage of this to generate a specialized diagnostic when trying to
compare values of function type with ===.
Fixes rdar://25666129.
This reverts commit 073f427942,
i.e. it reapplies 35ba809fd0 with a
test fix to expect an extra note in one place.
as a failure to convert the individual operand, since the operator
is likely conceptually generic in some way and the choice of any
specific overload is probably arbitrary.
Since we now fall back to a better-informed diagnostics point, take
advantage of this to generate a specialized diagnostic when trying to
compare values of function type with ===.
Fixes rdar://25666129.
wraps up SE-0004 and SE-0029.
I consider the diagnostic changes in Constraints/lvalues.swift to be
indicative of a QoI regression, but I'll deal with that separately.
set where all members of the set produce the same type, produce a more
specific error.
Before:
t.swift:4:17: error: no '&&' candidates produce the expected contextual result type 'Int'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
t.swift:4:17: note: produces result of type 'Bool'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
after:
t.swift:4:17: error: '&&' produces 'Bool', not the expected contextual result type 'Int'
return a == b && 1 == 2
^
This improves the situation reported in https://twitter.com/_jlfischer/status/712337382175952896
Correctly determine callee closeness for func/ops that include generics
as part of more complicated parameters, i.e. tuple or closure args
containing generics as elements or args/results. Still only handling
single archetypes.
Also added code to check generic substitutions already made in the callee
parameters, which further helps diagnosis.
Producing single argument mismatches involving generics causes some
gross looking error messages if the generic mismatches get put into the
same closeness bucket as non-generic mismatches.
E.g. `var v71 = true + 1.0` used to produce `error: cannot convert
value of type 'Bool' to expected argument type 'Double’`, but would now
end up with `binary operator '+' cannot be applied to operands of type
'Bool' and 'Double’` `overloads for '+' exist with these partially
matching parameter lists: (Double, Double), (T, T.Stride), (T.Stride,
T)`.
Resolve this by adding CC_OneGenericArgumentNearMismatch and
CC_OneGenericArgumentMismatch, that are similar but ever so slightly
not as close as a mismatch involving non-generic functions. This gets
back the original error message in cases like the above, because there
is only one declaration of `+` which partially matches and is
non-generic, and the generic partial matches are now farther away.
But now single arg mismatches and nearness work for single-archetype
generic functions, as in the additions to the SR-69 test at the end of
deduction.swift.
In the specific case of sr-69, and in a bunch of other code where
errors arise involving generic function application, better type
constraint failure diagnoses are being masked by the overly
conservative implementation in evaluateCloseness(). If the actual arg
types didn’t exactly match the parameter types, we’d always diagnose a
non-specific arguments-don’t-match error instead of allowing discovery
of better errors from the constraint system.
This commit adds more cases where evaluateCloseness will return
CC_ExactMatch, specifically in application of functions with one or
more arguments of a single archetype, like `func min<T: Comparable>(T,
T) -> T`. It verifies that the actual argument type
isSubstitutableFor() the archetype, and that all such arguments are of
the same type. Anything more complicated than that still has the
previous behavior of not matching at all.
I think the final answer here ought to be to make a constraint system
with type variables for any archetypes, add appropriate constraints to
the actual args and then see if the system can solve all the argument
constraints at once. That’s because the next most complicated set of
things to handle in the stdlib are things like `func -<T:
Strideable>(lhs: T, rhs: T.Stride)` where generic argument types depend
on each other. I tried attacking that, but it was too big of a bite for
me to manage all at once. But there are FIXME’s here to try that again
at some point.
New tests for SR-69 are at the end of deduction.swift, and the rest of
the test changes are generally improved deduced diagnoses. I think the
changed diagnoses in materializable_restrictions.swift is the only one
which is worse instead of better, and that’s just because the previous
general message mentioned `inout` basically accidentally. Opportunity
for further improvement (a new diagnosis maybe) there.
Validation tests run and passed.
overloaded argument list mismatches. We printed them in simple cases
due to "Failure" detecting them in trivial situations. Instead of
doing that, let CSDiags do it, which allows us to pick things out of
overload sets and handle the more complex cases well.
This is a progression across the board except for a couple of cases
where we now produce "cannot convert value of type 'whatever' to
expected argument type '(arglist)'", this is a known issue that I'll
fix in a subsequent commit.
Previously we erroneously complained:
error: cannot invoke 'contains' with an argument list of type '(String)'
now we correctly complain:
error: unexpected non-void return value in void function
This enhances CSDiags to use "getTypeOfMember" when analyzing method
candidates that are applied to a known base type. Using it allows us to
substitute information about the base, resolving archetypes that exist in
subsequent argument positions. In the testcase, this means that we use
information about Set<String> to know that the argument to "contains" is a
String.
This allows us to generate much better diagnostics in some cases, and works
around some limitations in the existing stuff for handling unresolved
archetypes. One unfortunate change is the notes in Misc/misc_diagnostics.swift.
Because we don't track argument lists very well, we are flattening an argument
list that is actually ((Int,Int)) into (Int, Int) so we get a bogus looking
diagnostic. This was possible before this patch though, it is just one
more case that triggers the issue.
code had the effect of squishing the note that printed the overload candidate
set for the operators in question. While these are not generally helpful given
how many overloads we have of (e.g.) the + operator, it doesn't do us any good
to have special cases like this, because methods can have tons of overloads as
well.
call expression onto a callee when it was a binary expression. Doing this
requires improving the diagnostics for when the contextual result type is
incompatible with all candidates, but that is general goodness all around.
This fixes:
<rdar://problem/22333090> QoI: Propagate contextual information in a call to operands
and improves a number of diagnostics where the problem is that an operator
is used in a context that expects a type that it cannot produce.
Swift SVN r31891
- Enhance the branch new argument label overload diagnostic to just
print the argument labels that are the problem, instead of printing
the types inferred at the argument context. This can lead to confusion
particularly when an argument label is missing. For example before:
error: argument labels '(Int)' do not match any available overloads
note: overloads for 'TestOverloadSets.init' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (a: Z0), (value: Int), (value: Double)
after:
error: argument labels '(_:)' do not match any available overloads
note: overloads for 'TestOverloadSets.init' exist with these partially matching parameter lists: (a: Z0), (value: Int), (value: Double)
Second, fix <rdar://problem/22451001> QoI: incorrect diagnostic when argument to print has the wrong type
by specifically diagnosing the problem when you pass in an argument to a nullary function. Before:
error: cannot convert value of type 'Int' to expected argument type '()'
after:
error: argument passed to call that takes no arguments
print(r22451001(5))
^
Swift SVN r31795
forced conversion to "_ -> T" if it will refine the type otherwise found by
doing a non-contextual type check. This allows us to diagnose calls to
non-function values with more specificity, e.g. adding another case were we
recommend "do" when using bare braces.
Swift SVN r31726
