When running `check`/`suggest` in a file with an invalid user pragma
like
```nim
{.pragma foo: test.}
```
It will continue to try and process it which leads to the compiler
running into a `FieldDefect`
```
fatal.nim(53) sysFatal
Error: unhandled exception: field 'sons' is not accessible for type 'TNode' using 'kind = nkIdent' [FieldDefect]
```
This makes it instead bail out trying to process the user pragma if its
invalid
While looking at the CI I noticed that there's a couple false positives
for `case` statements that cannot be checked for exhaustiveness since my
changes, this should resolve them.
---------
Co-authored-by: SirOlaf <>
**TODO**
- [x] fixes changelog
With the new option `nimPreviewVtables`, `methods` are confined in the
same module where the type of the first parameter is defined
- [x] make it opt in after CI checks its feasibility
## In the following-up PRs
- [ ] in the following PRs, refactor code into a more efficient one
- [ ] cpp needs special treatments since it cannot embed array in light
of the preceding limits: ref
https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/pull/20977#discussion_r1035528927; we
can support cpp backends with vtable implementations later on the
comprise that uses indirect vtable access
---------
Co-authored-by: Andreas Rumpf <rumpf_a@web.de>
Currently running `nimsuggest`/`check` on this code causes the compiler
to raise an exception
```nim
type
Test = enum
A = 9.0
```
```
assertions.nim(34) raiseAssert
Error: unhandled exception: int128.nim(69, 11) `arg.sdata(3) == 0` out of range [AssertionDefect]
```
Issue was the compiler still trying to get the ordinal value even if it
wasn't an ordinal
fixes#22286
ref https://forum.nim-lang.org/t/10642
For backwards compatibilities, we might need to keep the changes under a
preview compiler flag. Let's see how many packags it break.
**TODO** in the following PRs
- [ ] Turn the `var T` destructors warning into an error with
`nimPreviewNonVarDestructor`
---------
Co-authored-by: Andreas Rumpf <rumpf_a@web.de>
…var/let symbols
fixes#22939fixes#16890
Besides, it was applied to let/const/var with pragmas, now it is
universally applied.
```nim
{.push exportc.}
proc foo =
let bar = 12
echo bar
{.pop.}
```
For example, the `bar` variable will be affected by `exportc`.
In this PR, the following changes were made:
1. Replaced `raise newException(OSError, osErrorMsg(errno))` in batches
with `raiseOSError(errcode)`.
2. Replaced `newException(OSError, osErrorMsg(errno))` in batches with
`newOSError(errcode)`.
There are still some places that have not been replaced. After checking,
they are not system errors in the traditional sense.
```nim
proc dlclose(lib: LibHandle) =
raise newException(OSError, "dlclose not implemented on Nintendo Switch!")
```
```nim
if not fileExists(result) and not dirExists(result):
# consider using: `raiseOSError(osLastError(), result)`
raise newException(OSError, "file '" & result & "' does not exist")
```
```nim
proc paramStr*(i: int): string =
raise newException(OSError, "paramStr is not implemented on Genode")
```
Close#22826
I am not sure why this code skips generic insts, so letting CI tell me.
Update: It has told me nothing. Maybe someone knows during review.
Issue itself seems to be that the generic instance is skipped thus it
ends up being just `float` which makes it use the wrong generic instance
of the proc because it matches the one in cache
---------
Co-authored-by: SirOlaf <>
fixes#22753
## Future work
We should turn all the error nodes into nodes of a nkError kind, which
could be a industrious task. But perhaps we can add a special treatment
for error nodes to make the transition smooth.
The goal of this PR is to make `typeRel` accurate to it's definition for
generics:
```
# 3) When used with two type classes, it will check whether the types
# matching the first type class (aOrig) are a strict subset of the types matching
# the other (f). This allows us to compare the signatures of generic procs in
# order to give preferrence to the most specific one:
```
I don't want this PR to break any code, and I want to preserve all of
Nims current behaviors. I think that making this more accurate will help
serve as ground work for the future. It may not be possible to not break
anything but this is my attempt.
So that it is understood, this code was part of another PR (#22143) but
that problem statement only needed this change by extension. It's more
organized to split two problems into two PRs and this issue, being
non-breaking, should be a more immediate improvement.
---------
Co-authored-by: Andreas Rumpf <rumpf_a@web.de>
