- Introduce new 'rem' operator convention
- Prefer 'rem()' to 'mod()' when both are available, even if mod() is a
member, and rem() -- an extension
- Place operator 'rem' under the language feature
Similarly to pre-release classes, load metadata for the class anyway and allow
the resolution to select it as the result and prohibit its usage in the end
with the special diagnostic reported in MissingDependencyClassChecker
This has no effect for the original use case of mock class descriptors
(unresolved classes used in libraries), but is necessary for pre-release
classes in case the compiler is a release, because such classes end up in scope
and can be the result of the resolution
After this change SAM adapters are being resolved in the same group
as members, thus their overload resolution happens simultaneously.
But in the case of overload resolution ambiguity try to filter out all
synthetic members and run the process again.
See the issue and new test for clarification
#KT-11128 In Progress
'a<T>::foo' is reserved if 'a' is a simple name and can be resolved as an expression
(this can be extended to 'a.b.c<T>::foo' case, although that is rather hard to implement using PSI).
'a?::foo' is reserved if 'a' can be resolved as an expression.
Use "-Xno-check-impl" to suppress checking whether the platform declaration
implementation has the "impl" modifier.
Do not check presence of fake overrides from platform class in the impl class,
otherwise there would be a lot of errors about the fact that
equals/hashCode/toString are not marked with the "impl" modifier
When matching platform and impl classifiers, ensure that each declaration from
the platform class scope is present in the impl class scope.
Note that the presence of the 'impl' modifier is not checked yet
For each platform declaration, there must be at least one impl declaration in
the module with the compatible signature; similarly, for each impl declaration,
there must be at least one platform declaration with the compatible signature.
Note that currently the presence of the 'impl' modifier is not checked yet.
Also, the sad fact is that if you have platform and impl declarations which are
not compatible, you get two errors: on the platform delcaration and on the impl
declaration. This needs to be addressed as well
Otherwise calls to functions which are declared twice (platform and impl) would
result in an error "conflicting overloads" in platform-specific modules
Because of incomplete infrastructure, introduce a few dirty hacks to make
diagnostic tests analyze the common code via DefaultAnalyzerFacade, and also
add common module sources to analysis of platform-specific modules.
Also do not render 'platform' declarations from platform-specific modules to
the .txt file, since they are very likely to be exact copies of the same
declaration in the common module (see RecursiveDescriptorComparator)
E.g. 'impl typealias Foo<A, B> = Bar<A, B>' is allowed; everything else
(variance, changing order of parameters, etc.) is pretty much disallowed.
This is done for simplicity: otherwise matching the platform/impl class scopes
would be not so straightforward
Do not report "unused parameter" for parameters of platform declarations. Do
not allow platform class constructors to have val/var parameters or have an
explicit delegation call to another constructor. Do not allow platform classes
to have 'init' blocks.
Also suppress the "supertype not initialized" error for platform classes: the
supertype should be initialized in the impl class
Mikhail Zarechenskiy