makeUniqueName() produces tokens that cannot be used as closure arguments

[grynspan]

Description

If I attempt to label closure arguments during macro expansion:

let arg0 = context.makeUniqueName("")
return """
{ \(arg0) in
  ...
}
"""

The compiler complains:

🛑 Inferred projection type 'Int' is not a property wrapper
🛑 Inferred projection type '() -> Int' is not a property wrapper

This means I can't reliably produce closure argument names, which is problematic if my macro expansion generates a closure and the macro is being used inside another closure:

@Test func foo() {
  let x = [2, 4, 6]
  x.forEach {
    #expect($0 % 2 == 0) // 🛑 Anonymous closure arguments cannot be used inside
                         // a closure that has explicit arguments; did you mean '$0'?
  }
}

Steps to Reproduce

See above.

[grynspan]

See also swiftlang/swift#68475

[grynspan]

I can repro with swift-DEVELOPMENT-SNAPSHOT-2023-10-02-a-osx, which I think means #68475 isn't a complete fix. My mistake, I was using a different toolchain.

[grynspan]

Having a day here… :) The issue with the spurious error is fixed, but I still can't use makeUniqueName() to generate my labels.

[ahoppen]

Tracked in Apple’s issue tracker as rdar://116402749

[ahoppen]

Reduced reproducer

public struct StringifyMacro: ExpressionMacro {
  public static func expansion(
    of node: some FreestandingMacroExpansionSyntax,
    in context: some MacroExpansionContext
  ) -> ExprSyntax {
    guard let argument = node.argumentList.first?.expression else {
      fatalError("compiler bug: the macro does not have any arguments")
    }
    let arg0 = context.makeUniqueName("")
    return """
      { \(arg0) in
        return \(argument)
      }(1)
      """
  }
}

Usage

_ = #stringify(a + b)

Expands to the following, which doesn’t compile

_ = { $s17mac_adsfjlkClient33_E5FD3D533106409A33F51D71F9BB5B8CLl9stringifyfMf_7__localfMu_ in
  return a + b
}(1)

Reproducing Package

[AppAppWorks]

@ahoppen It appears to me PluginMacroExpansionContext always receives from the host an expansionDiscriminator in the form of "$\(DemangledName)", that's why makeUniqueName always returns a "$"-prefixed string.

extension PluginMacroExpansionContext: MacroExpansionContext {
  /// Generate a unique name for use in the macro.
  public func makeUniqueName(_ providedName: String) -> TokenSyntax {
    // If provided with an empty name, substitute in something.
    let name = providedName.isEmpty ? "__local" : providedName

    // Grab a unique index value for this name.
    let uniqueIndex = uniqueNames[name, default: 0]
    uniqueNames[name] = uniqueIndex + 1

    // Start with the discriminator.
    var resultString = expansionDiscriminator

    // Mangle the name
    resultString += "\(name.count)\(name)"

    // Mangle the operator for unique macro names.
    resultString += "fMu"

    // Mangle the index.
    if uniqueIndex > 0 {
      resultString += "\(uniqueIndex - 1)"
    }
    resultString += "_"

    return TokenSyntax(.identifier(resultString), presence: .present)
  }

Can we just trim the leading "$" from expansionDiscriminator? In my understanding, $-prefixed identifiers are reserved for property wrapper projections, or should "$" be used for all compiler-synthesized identifiers?

[grynspan]

The $ is added so that the generated name is guaranteed not to conflict with anything the developer might have written. In this context, the compiler's variable name validation rules may need to be relaxed to allow compiler-generated argument names.

[j-f1]

$-prefixed variable names are already valid here, as a way to construct a property wrapper-wrapped variable from its projected value. So somehow there’d need to be a way to distinguish those from the compiler-generated names. (And allow the compiler generated names to be used with the property wrapper syntax)

[AppAppWorks]

the compiler's variable name validation rules may need to be relaxed to allow compiler-generated argument names.

@grynspan does it warrant a pitch?
If yes, I'd love to try on my first one!

[grynspan]

As this is not my area, I wouldn't presume to answer that question. @DougGregor or @ahoppen probably know more than I do.