Need a better fix, right now it is just causing even more confusion,
for example in issue #1448 and #1387.
This reverts commit 1e4de333740690357a8f58883c5c69bf58be1424.
Check that in export foo{}, foo is an enum type, and that in export
foo{bar, quux}, foo is an enum type and bar and quux are variants belonging
to foo.
See issue 1426 for details. Now, the semantics of "export t;" where t is a tag are
to export all of t's variants as well. "export t{};" exports t but not its
variants, while "export t{a, b, c};" exports only variants a, b, c of t.
To do:
- documentation
- there's currently no checking that a, b, c are actually variants of t in the
above example
- there's also no checking that t is an enum type, in the second two examples above
- change the modules listed in issue 1426 that should have the old export
semantics to use the t{} syntax
I deleted the test export-no-tag-variants since we're doing the opposite now,
and other tests cover the same behavior.
Support Lenny222's proposed syntax for exporting a tag without
its variants, or selected tags from a variant, in the AST and parser.
No support further down the line yet. Tests are xfailed.
Previously, typestate would conclude that this function was
correctly diverging:
fn f() -> ! { ret; fail; }
even though it always returns to the caller. It wasn't handling the
i_diverge and i_return bits correctly in the fail case. Fixed it.
Closes#897
typestate was using the enclosing function ID for the "this function
returns" constraint, which meant confusion and panic in the case
where a predicate p includes "check p()". Fixed it to use a fresh
ID.
Closes#933
The code in Issue 948 was causing typestate to diverge because
it was using the prestate for the whole expression -- not the post-
state for the fields list -- as the prestate for the record base
expression. Fixed.
Closes#948
This is not my ideal way of going about things. I'd prefer not
to have expressions typed as fn*(), for example, but I couldn't
get that to work together with inferring the modes of arguments
and other corner cases.
Although the old version of GEP_tup_like was incorrect in some
cases, I do not believe we ever used it in an incorrect fashion.
In particular, it could go wrong with extended index sequences
like [0, 1, 3], but as near as I can tell we only ever use it
with short sequences like [0, i].
