Skip to content

Implement experimental module selectors (MyMod::someName) feature #34556

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Draft
wants to merge 25 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

beccadax
Copy link
Contributor

@beccadax beccadax commented Nov 3, 2020

This pull request begins to implement "module selectors", which allow references to declarations to be unambiguously prefixed with a module they can be found through:

class MyClass: ObjectiveC::NSObject {}  // OK, ObjectiveC defines NSObject
class MyClass: Foundation::NSObject {}  // OK, Foundation re-exports NSObject
class MyClass: Swift::NSObject {}       // error, Swift does not re-export or define NSObject
class MyClass: MyModule::NSObject {}    // error, MyModule does not re-export or define NSObject

This PR parses module selectors and partially implements lookup and diagnostics for them. The new functionality is hidden behind an -enable-experimental-module-selector frontend flag. There is one diagnostic regression with that flag enabled, but I've made sure that it keeps working when the diagnostic is disabled.

This work was previously in PR #28834, which was closed during the master-to-main transition. I've updated it to work on modern compilers, including removing some FIXMEs for bad diagnostics that have improved since December 2019.

Makes progress on rdar://problem/19481048.

@beccadax beccadax changed the title Module selectors Implement experimental module selectors (MyMod::someName) feature Nov 3, 2020
@beccadax beccadax force-pushed the mod-squad-2 branch 3 times, most recently from eb8ecdf to b6d41f6 Compare July 21, 2021 20:18
@nkcsgexi
Copy link
Contributor

Woohoo! Thank you for reviving this, Becca!

beccadax added 25 commits August 6, 2025 12:46
Try to avoid calling `getSourceRange()` on a decl where that will form an invalid range.
When closing paren is missing, point at the location where it should be found, not the opening paren.
A PatternBindingEntry formed from a MissingPatternSyntax has no valid SourceLocs in it, and a PatternBindingDecl containing only PatternBindingEntries with no valid SourceLocs trips an assertion during availability checking. (Generating dummy SourceLocs can cause invalid overlaps between AvailabilityScopes, so that’s not a workable solution.) The fix is to:

• Refuse to generate a PatternBindingEntry from a PatternBindingSyntax with a MissingPatternSyntax (MissingPatternSyntaxes at nested positions don’t have this problem)
• Refuse to generate a PatternBindingDecl with no PatternBindingEntries

This ensures that the invalid AST nodes are never formed.

No current test cases hit this problem, but certain invalid module selector tests can run into this situation when run with ASTGen.
The diagnostics in this test will evolve as we implement pieces of the feature.
Adds comments explaining why these conversions aren’t lossy.
@beccadax
Copy link
Contributor Author

With swiftlang/swift-syntax#3091

@swift-ci please smoke test

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants