Problem: Vim9: compiling abstract method fails without return
(Aliaksei Budavei)
Solution: don't require return for an abstract method
(Ernie Rael)
fixes: #15432
related: ##15441
closes: #16469
Signed-off-by: Ernie Rael <errael@raelity.com>
Signed-off-by: Yegappan Lakshmanan <yegappan@yahoo.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>
assert_equal('foo', A.Foo())
END
v9.CheckSourceSuccess(lines)
+
+ # Invoke method returning a value through the abstract class. See #15432.
+ lines =<< trim END
+ vim9script
+
+ abstract class A
+ abstract def String(): string
+ endclass
+
+ class B extends A
+ def String(): string
+ return 'B'
+ enddef
+ endclass
+
+ def F(o: A)
+ assert_equal('B', o.String())
+ enddef
+ F(B.new())
+ END
+ v9.CheckSourceSuccess(lines)
+
+ # Invoke abstract method returning a value does not compile
+ lines =<< trim END
+ vim9script
+
+ abstract class A
+ abstract def String(): string
+ return 'X'
+ enddef
+ endclass
+ END
+ v9.CheckScriptFailure(lines, "E1318: Not a valid command in a class: return 'X'")
enddef
" Test for calling a class method from a subclass
static int included_patches[] =
{ /* Add new patch number below this line */
+/**/
+ 1034,
/**/
1033,
/**/
goto erret;
ufunc->uf_args_visible = ufunc->uf_args.ga_len;
- // Compiling a function in an interface is done to get the function type.
- // No code is actually compiled.
- if (ufunc->uf_class != NULL && IS_INTERFACE(ufunc->uf_class))
+ // Compiling an abstract method or a function in an interface is done to
+ // get the function type. No code is actually compiled.
+ if (ufunc->uf_class != NULL && (IS_INTERFACE(ufunc->uf_class)
+ || IS_ABSTRACT_METHOD(ufunc)))
{
ufunc->uf_def_status = UF_NOT_COMPILED;
ret = OK;