[Serialization/TypeChecker] Introduce ExtensibleEnums feature
#79580
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
xedin
requested review from
artemcm,
xymus,
hborla,
slavapestov,
tshortli and
DougGregor
as code owners
slavapestov
approved these changes
Feb 24, 2025
xedin
force-pushed
the
extensible-enums
branch
from
fb3780d to
0271c97
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
…um` feature is supported by a module When `ExtensibleEnums` flag is set, it's going to be reflected in the module file produced by the compiler to make sure that consumers know that non-`@frozen` enumerations can gain new cases in the future and switching cannot be exhaustive.
If an enum comes from a different module that has `ExtensibleEnums` feature enabled, unless it requires either `@unknown default:` or `@frozen` because it is allowed to introduce new cases in the future versions of the module.
xedin
force-pushed
the
extensible-enums
branch
from
0271c97 to
b84bf05
Compare
|
@swift-ci please test |
FranzBusch
reviewed
Feb 25, 2025
| case .a: break | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| switch f { // expected-warning {{switch must be exhaustive}} expected-note {{dd missing case: '.b'}} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a test that exhaustively switches over f but also has an @unknown default here. That should generate a warning as well since the default isn't needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll look into that in a separate PR. Regular exhaustivity rules apply here, so what ever that implementation does is going to be reflected.
| switch e { // expected-warning {{switch must be exhaustive}} expected-note {{dd missing case: '.a'}} | ||
| @unknown default: break | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add a test for this
switch e { // expected-warning
case .a: break
@unknown default: break
}
| switch f { // expected-warning {{switch must be exhaustive}} expected-note {{dd missing case: '.b'}} | ||
| case .a: break | ||
| @unknown default: break | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here can we add a test for this
switch f { // expected-warning
case .a: break
case .b: break
@unknown default: break
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.
Pitch: https://forums.swift.org/t/pitch-extensible-enums-for-non-resilient-modules/77649
Introduced a proposed feature -
ExtensibleEnumsand updates exhaustivity checking toerror if a non-
@frozenenum that comes from a module that has this feature enabled doesn'thave
@unknown default:case.