TypeChecker::conformsToProtocol() => ModuleDecl::checkConformance() #70937
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
slavapestov
requested review from
AnthonyLatsis,
hborla,
xedin,
ktoso,
ahoppen,
bnbarham,
hamishknight and
rintaro
as code owners
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
slavapestov
force-pushed
the
rename-conformance-lookup
branch
from
7ef1d20 to
14d1fcb
Compare
|
@swift-ci Please smoke test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
TypeChecker::conformsToProtocol()is now gone. There are two entry points on ModuleDecl:ModuleDecl::lookupConformance()returns a conformance if one exists without checking conditional requirements. You can pass in a type containing type parameters.ModuleDecl::checkConformance()also checks conditional requirements. You must pass in a type that does not contain type parameters (archetypes are OK).Note that the two methods differ in the default value for the
allowMissingparameter: the first one has it as false, and the second one as true. I don't know if this is an accident or on purpose but I left it alone to avoid breaking code.