checking checked cast via bridging. It prevented bridging upcasts using
'as!' from typechecking; we should emit an 'as!'->'as' warning instead.
Also, use ExplicitConversion constraint instead of Conversion when
determining whether a checked cast can be carried out unconditionally.
This matches the constraint used after applying the 'as!'->'as' fixit.
(Also, fix the error that was responsible for breaking
the expr/cast/bridged.swift test.)
<rdar://problem/19813772>
Swift SVN r28034
checking checked cast via bridging. It prevented bridging upcasts using
'as!' from typechecking; we should emit an 'as!'->'as' warning instead.
Also, use ExplicitConversion constraint instead of Conversion when
determining whether a checked cast can be carried out unconditionally.
This matches the constraint used after applying the 'as!'->'as' fixit.
<rdar://problem/19813772>
Swift SVN r28028
includes a number of QoI things to help people write the correct code. I will commit
the testcase for it as the next patch.
The bulk of this patch is moving the stdlib, testsuite and validation testsuite to
the new syntax. I moved a few uses of "as" patterns back to as? expressions in the
stdlib as well.
Swift SVN r27959
- <rdar://problem/16306600> QoI: passing a 'let' value as an inout results in an unfriendly diagnostic
- <rdar://problem/16927246> provide a fixit to change "let" to "var" if needing to mutate a variable
We now refer to an inout argument as such, e.g.:
t.swift:7:9: error: cannot pass 'let' value 'a' as inout argument
swap(&a, &b)
^
we also produce a note with a fixit to rewrite let->var in trivial cases where mutation is
being assed for, e.g.:
t.swift:3:3: note: change 'let' to 'var' to make it mutable
let a = 42
^~~
var
The note is produced by both Sema and DI.
Swift SVN r27774
We now produce diagnostics like:
- cannot pass 'let' value 'a' to mutating unary operator '++'
- cannot pass get-only property 'b' to mutating unary operator '++'
- cannot pass immutable value of type 'Int64' to mutating unary operator '++'
Swift SVN r27772
If you want to make the parameter and argument label the same in
places where you don't get the argument label for free (i.e., the
first parameter of a function or a parameter of a subscript),
double-up the identifier:
func translate(dx dx: Int, dy: Int) { }
Make this a warning with Fix-Its to ease migration. Part of
rdar://problem/17218256.
Swift SVN r27715
The rule changes are as follows:
* All functions (introduced with the 'func' keyword) have argument
labels for arguments beyond the first, by default. Methods are no
longer special in this regard.
* The presence of a default argument no longer implies an argument
label.
The actual changes to the parser and printer are fairly simple; the
rest of the noise is updating the standard library, overlays, tests,
etc.
With the standard library, this change is intended to be API neutral:
I've added/removed #'s and _'s as appropriate to keep the user
interface the same. If we want to separately consider using argument
labels for more free functions now that the defaults in the language
have shifted, we can tackle that separately.
Fixes rdar://problem/17218256.
Swift SVN r27704
The type checker (and various other parts of the front end) jump
through many hoops to try to cope with the lack of a proper
declaration for an inferred type witness, causing various annoying
bugs. Additionally, we were creating implicit declarations for
derived/synthesized witnesses, leading to inconsistent AST
representations. This ch
Note that we'll now end up printing the inferred type aliases for type
witnesses, which represents a reversal of the decision that closed
rdar://problem/15168378. This result is more consistent.
Now with a simpler accessibility computation.
Swift SVN r27512
The type checker (and various other parts of the front end) jump
through many hoops to try to cope with the lack of a proper
declaration for an inferred type witness, causing various annoying
bugs. Additionally, we were creating implicit declarations for
derived/synthesized witnesses, leading to inconsistent AST
representations. This ch
Note that we'll now end up printing the inferred type aliases for type
witnesses, which represents a reversal of the decision that closed
rdar://problem/15168378. This result is more consistent.
Swift SVN r27487
for a member element reference. This improves error recovery and fixes cases where we'd
reject invalid code in unspaced situations (like "(.x)") this fixes rdar://20251513.
Swift SVN r26406
is invalid and produces a ParseError, recovery by producing an AST with an ErrorExpr in it
instead of dropping the initializer on the floor. This silences downstream errors about
"must have an initializer" sorts of stuff.
Swift SVN r26405
Previously, a multi-pattern var/let decl like:
var x = 4, y = 17
would produce two pattern binding decls (one for x=4 one for y=17). This is convenient
in some ways, but is bad for source reproducibility from the ASTs (see, e.g. the improvements
in test/IDE/structure.swift and test/decl/inherit/initializer.swift).
The hardest part of this change was to get parseDeclVar to set up the AST in a way
compatible with our existing assumptions. I ended up with an approach that forms PBDs in
more erroneous cases than before. One downside of this is that we now produce a spurious
"type annotation missing in pattern"
diagnostic in some cases. I'll take care of that in a follow-on patch.
Swift SVN r26224
This changes 'if let' conditions to take general refutable patterns, instead of
taking a irrefutable pattern and implicitly matching against an optional.
Where before you might have written:
if let x = foo() {
you now need to write:
if let x? = foo() {
The upshot of this is that you can write anything in an 'if let' that you can
write in a 'case let' in a switch statement, which is pretty general.
To aid with migration, this special cases certain really common patterns like
the above (and any other irrefutable cases, like "if let (a,b) = foo()", and
tells you where to insert the ?. It also special cases type annotations like
"if let x : AnyObject = " since they are no longer allowed.
For transitional purposes, I have intentionally downgraded the most common
diagnostic into a warning instead of an error. This means that you'll get:
t.swift:26:10: warning: condition requires a refutable pattern match; did you mean to match an optional?
if let a = f() {
^
?
I think this is important to stage in, because this is a pretty significant
source breaking change and not everyone internally may want to deal with it
at the same time. I filed 20166013 to remember to upgrade this to an error.
In addition to being a nice user feature, this is a nice cleanup of the guts
of the compiler, since it eliminates the "isConditional()" bit from
PatternBindingDecl, along with the special case logic in the compiler to handle
it (which variously added and removed Optional around these things).
Swift SVN r26150
This location is used when deciding whether a capture has already been
initialized, and without it the compiler decides that the reference to
a name from the capture list should be rejected.
rdar://problem/19776255&20153574
Swift SVN r26103
In r22669, we expanded our parsing of T?? by using operator splitting. This works
great when the ?? is lexed as a postfix operator, but does the wrong thing when the ??
is lexed as an infix and there is whitespace around it. For that, we don't want to
process it as a type. This was reported in a number of places including on stack
overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28430496/nil-coalescing-to-provide-default-values-in-swift-1-2
Swift SVN r25228
This is required to correctly use the mock SDK when the SDK overlay is
built and tested separately. (Otherwise, the mock SDK might not get
used, because the overlay SDK options would expand from the
%-substitution, appear first on the command line, and shadow the mock
SDK in the search path).
Swift SVN r25185
This post-hoc diagnostic replaces r24915, r25045, and r25054 by doing a
very basic check for representation incompatibility between two types.
More cases can be added as necessary.
rdar://problem/19600325, again.
Swift SVN r25117
John pointed out that messing with the type checker's notion of "subtype"
is a bad idea. Instead, we should just have a separate check for ABI
compatibility...and eventually (rdar://problem/19517003) just insert the
appropriate thunks rather than forcing the user to perform the conversion.
I'm leaving all the tests as they are because I'm adding a post-type-checking
diagnostic in the next commit, and that should pass all the same tests.
Part of rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r25116
Penalize solutions that involve 'as' -> 'as!' changes by recording a Fix
when simplifying the corresponding checked-cast constraint.
<rdar://problem/19724719> Type checker thinks "(optionalNSString ?? nonoptionalNSString) as String" is a forced cast
Swift SVN r25061
This re-applies r24987, reverted in r24990, with a fix for a spuriously-
introduced error: don't use a favored constraint in a disjunction to avoid
applying a fix. (Why not? Because favoring bubbles up, i.e. the
/disjunction/ becomes favored even if the particular branch is eventually
rejected.) This doesn't seem to affect the outcome, though: the other
branch of the disjunction doesn't seem to be tried anyway.
Finishes rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r25054
And even if we don't suggest wrapping in a closure (say, because there's
already a closure involved), emit a more relevant diagnostic anyway.
(Wordsmithing welcome.)
Wrapping a function value in a closure essentially explicitly inserts a
conversion thunk that we should eventually be able to implicitly insert;
that's rdar://problem/19517003.
Part of rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r24987
These haven't ever been safe in Swift's development because they require
generating thunks, and we currently don't do that. However, we were letting
existential conversions slip through the cracks because we consider them
subtypes, so that /metatype/ conversions work correctly. To be concrete:
"let _: Any.Type = Int.self" is okay.
"let _: (Int) -> Void = { (_: Any) -> Void in return }" is not.
We should implement this some day; that's rdar://problem/19517003.
This produces some lousy error messages, which I intend to fix soon.
Part of rdar://problem/19600325
Swift SVN r24915
Previously, trailing closures would try to match the first parameter
of (possibly optional) function type that didn't seem to have an
argument already, but in practice this broke when there were
parameters with default arguments before the function parameter.
The new rule is far simpler: a trailing closure matches the last
parameter. Fixes rdar://problem/17965209.
Swift SVN r24898
When generating constraints for an 'as' expression, consider the
possibility that the code is supposed to be 'as!' instead of 'as'. Emit
the appropriate fixit if that branch of the disjunction is chosen by the
constraint solver.
This is a more comprehensive fix for <rdar://problem/19499340> than the
one in r24815.
Swift SVN r24872
- Situations where the type of a return statement's result expression doesn't line up with the function's type annotation.
- Situations where the type of an initializer expression doesn't line up with its declaration's type pattern.
- Situations where we assume a conversion to a built-in protocol must take place, such as in if-statement conditionals.
(Addresses rdar://problem/19224776, rdar://problem/19422107, rdar://problem/19422156, rdar://problem/19547806 and lots of other dupes.)
Swift SVN r24853
Previously, we attempted to infer @objc-ness based on conformance, but
doing so is fraught with ordering dependencies, and just doesn't work
in the general case. Among other crimes, this allowed us to
retroactively mark a non-@objc method from an imported module as
@objc... even though nobody would ever then emit the @objc entry
points for it.
Fixes the rest of rdar://problem/18383574.
Swift SVN r24831
- Closures that are comprised of only a single return statement are now considered to be "single expression" closures. (rdar://problem/17550847)
- Unannotated single expression closures with non-void return types can now be used in void contexts. (rdar://problem/17228969)
- Situations where a multi-statement closure's type could not be inferred because of the lack of a return-type annotation are now properly diagnosed. (rdar://problem/17212107)
I also encountered a number of crashers along the way, which should now be fixed.
Swift SVN r24817
