We'll need this to get the right 'selfDC' when name lookup
finds a 'self' declaration in a capture list, eg
class C {
func bar() {}
func foo() {
_ = { [self] in bar() }
}
}
For example, the completion below would trigger error recovery within the
closure, which we recover from by skipping to the first inner closure's right
brace. The fact that we recovered though, was not recorded. The closure is
treated as still being an error, triggering another recovery after it that
skips over the 'Thing' token, giving a lone closure expression, rather than a
call.
CreateThings {
Thing { point in
print("hello")
point.#^HERE^#
}
Thing { _ in }
}
This isn't an issue for code completion when the outer closure is a regular
closure, but when it's a function builder, invalid elements result in no types
being applied (no valid solutions) and we end up with no completion results.
The fix here is removing the error status from the parser result after the
initial parser recovery.
This allows the syntax parser library and SwiftSyntax to successfully
parse code using this experimental feature without requiring an API
to pass compiler flags into the parser.
Add `async` to the type system. `async` can be written as part of a
function type or function declaration, following the parameter list, e.g.,
func doSomeWork() async { ... }
`async` functions are distinct from non-`async` functions and there
are no conversions amongst them. At present, `async` functions do not
*do* anything, but this commit fully supports them as a distinct kind
of function throughout:
* Parsing of `async`
* AST representation of `async` in declarations and types
* Syntactic type representation of `async`
* (De-/re-)mangling of function types involving 'async'
* Runtime type representation and reconstruction of function types
involving `async`.
* Dynamic casting restrictions for `async` function types
* (De-)serialization of `async` function types
* Disabling overriding, witness matching, and conversions with
differing `async`
VarPattern is today used to implement both 'let' and 'var' pattern bindings, so
today is already misleading. The reason why the name Var was chosen was done b/c
it is meant to represent a pattern that performs 'variable binding'. Given that
I am going to add a new 'inout' pattern binding to this, it makes sense to
give it now a better fitting name before I make things more confusing.
Extracts the list of magic identifier literal kinds into a separate file and updates a lot of code to use macro metaprogramming instead of naming half a dozen cases manually. This is a complicated change, but it should be NFC.
The parser used to rewrite
if let x: T
into
if let x: T?
This transformation is correct at face value, but relied on being able
to construct TypeReprs with bogus source locations. Instead of having
the parser kick semantic analysis into shape, let's perform this
reinterpretation when we resolve if-let patterns in statement
conditions.
that allows arbitrary `label: {}` suffixes after an initial
unlabeled closure.
Type-checking is not yet correct, as well as code-completion
and other kinds of tooling.
Accept trailing closures in following form:
```swift
foo {
<label-1>: { ... }
<label-2>: { ... }
...
<label-N>: { ... }
}
```
Consider each labeled block to be a regular argument to a call or subscript,
so the result of parser looks like this:
```swift
foo(<label-1>: { ... }, ..., <label-N>: { ... })
```
Note that in this example parens surrounding parameter list are implicit
and for the cases when they are given by the user e.g.
```swift
foo(bar) {
<label-1>: { ... }
...
}
```
location of `)` is changed to a location of `}` to make sure that call
"covers" all of the transformed arguments and parser result would look
like this:
```swift
foo(bar,
<label-1>: { ... }
)
```
Resolves: rdar://problem/59203764
Also extend returned object from simplify being an expression to
`TrailingClosure` which has a label, label's source location and
associated closure expression.
* diagnostic when a closure parameter is declared with type sugar
* Use a test that was already commmited for SR-11724
i
* Use isa<T> instead of asking for the kind directly
* Fix nit: Remove a whitespace
This commit introduces a request to type-check a
default argument expression and splits
`getDefaultValue` into 2 accessors:
- `getStructuralDefaultExpr` which retrieves the
potentially un-type-checked default argument
expression.
- `getTypeCheckedDefaultExpr` which retrieves a
fully type-checked default argument expression.
In addition, this commit adds `hasDefaultExpr`,
which allows checking for a default expr without
kicking off a request.
When SE-110 was being implemented, we accidentally began to accept
closure parameter declarations that had no associated parameter names,
e.g.
foo { ([Int]) in /**/ }
This syntax has never been sanctioned by any version of Swift and should
be banned. However, the change was made long enough ago and there are
enough clients relying on this, that we cannot accept the source break
at the moment. For now, add a bit to ParamDecl that marks a parameter
as destructured, and back out setting the invalid bit on the type repr
for these kinds of declarations.
To prevent further spread of this syntax, stub in a warning that offers
to insert an anonymous parameter.
Resolves part of rdar://56673657 and improves QoI for errors like
rdar://56911630
Use the isInvalid() bit on the TypeRepr to signal that a closure
parameter is potentially a tuple destructure. This has two benefits
1) Parse is no longer using the isInvalid() bit on Decl
2) Invalidating the type repr itself means that we no longer spuriously
diagnose variable patterns in destructures as missing types.
* [Diagnostics] Add a fix-it for try instead of throws in function decls and types.
Sometimes one would misstype `throws` for `try` so we provide a fix-it for that.
It might happen in two cases:
In function declarations:
```swift
func foo() try {}
```
In function types:
```swift
let f = () try -> Int
```
Resolves SR-11574.
TypeCheckPattern used to splat the interface type into this, and
different parts of the compiler would check one or the other. There is
now one source of truth: The interface type. The type repr is now just
a signal that the user has written an explicit type annotation on
a parameter. For variables, we will eventually be able to just grab
this information from the parent pattern.
Since getSpecifier() now kicks off a request instead of always
returning what was previously set, we can't pass a ParamSpecifier
to the ParamDecl constructor anymore. Instead, callers either
call setSpecifier() if the ParamDecl is synthesized, or they
rely on the request, which can compute the specifier in three
specific cases:
- Ordinary parsed parameters get their specifier from the TypeRepr.
- The 'self' parameter's specifier is based on the self access kind.
- Accessor parameters are either the 'newValue' parameter of a
setter, or a cloned subscript parameter.
For closure parameters with inferred types, we still end up
calling setSpecifier() twice, once to set the initial defalut
value and a second time when applying the solution in the
case that we inferred an 'inout' specifier. In practice this
should not be a big problem because expression type checking
walks the AST in a pre-determined order anyway.
