Following the TODO in CallableReferencesResolutionUtils.kt, delete the
suspicious scope and use the new resolution process with the qualifier which
was obtained after the resolution of LHS. However, by default the tower
resolution algorithm also considers each qualifier as a class value as well,
which would be wrong here because resolution of LHS as a "value" happens
earlier in DoubleColonExpressionResolver and with slightly different rules. To
avoid that, do not mix in the "explicit receiver" scope tower processor when
creating processors for callable reference resolution.
Also delete unused functions and classes related to deleted scope, refactor
Scopes.kt
#KT-8596 Fixed
Try resolving the LHS only when it looks (PSI-wise) like it could represent a
type element. This, for example, allows "illegal selector" error to be reported
on weird expressions like '""?.""::class'.
Also remove expression text from the "illegal selector" diagnostic, it's not
needed and can screw up the error message if the text is too big
It's needed when declarations are parsed as a part of previous expression
(see tests)
Currently we apply this kind of recovery in a conservative way,
only when declaration starts at the next line, and while
the condition could be relaxed, there's no need to do this
#KT-4948 Fixed
#KT-7118 Fixed
Mostly because of type aliases and coroutines related changes
The reason why not just +1 is to avoid clashes between 1.0.x and 1.1
in cases when version must be increased in both branches
This reverts commit 28e33aaf56.
Reverting is necessary because this change leads to complicated
exceptions, while it's usefulness is not that obvious.
#EA-82372 Fixed
If property name is parsed on the next line and declaration is invalid
(no receiver/type/initializer), treat that name as it does not belong to property
#KT-12987 In Progress
- allowShortAnnotations is true only for IN_ANNOTATION_LIST
- when starting parsing of annotation list we can't come to modifier list
(see the only usage of IN_ANNOTATION_LIST)
Previously the code was operating under the assumption that if the
implementation of some function (both the implementation and the function come
from supertypes) does not have a proper return type (the one which is a subtype
of return type of all declarations of this function in the supertypes), then
there's necessarily at least one abstract declaration of the function, such
that the implementation's return type is not a subtype of the return type of
that declaration. The assertion makes sense when the hierarchy above the
current class does not have any errors: we should report at least one function
as being "not implemented" in the current class.
However, as demonstrated by the test case, if there's an error already in the
supertypes with regard to overridability of members, this assertion may be
wrong. Reporting the "not implemented" error in such case is in fact not
necessary because of the already existing error ("return type mismatch" in the
test) in the supertypes
#KT-12482 Fixed
At first we try to resolve 'handleResult' just as last expression
in a lambda is first argument, then if results are unsuccessful
try resolve 'handleResult' with fake Unit expression
#KT-12969 Fixed
Alexander Udalov