Be more explicit about AST types (#921)

This was born out of wanting FunctionDeclaration to explicitly have a Block for a body, and became a bit more of specifying types around. Note this forces exec_program to generate a Block for print()'s body, which is probably more correct as now we can expect a standard FunctionDeclaration AST structure, even for the built-ins.

There is a syntactic change here: a continuation's body is now a Block, not just a Statement. I've added an example disallowed test case. I think this is more reasonable syntax.

Other than that, note that optional_else now generates a valid Block. This has me thinking about whether we can eliminate Sequence, but that seemed well out of scope for this.
This commit is contained in:
Jon Meow
2021-10-28 13:54:45 -07:00
committed by GitHub
parent dea277d8e1
commit bbd4940e6d
11 changed files with 143 additions and 122 deletions
+5 -5
View File
@@ -62,10 +62,10 @@ void Statement::PrintDepth(int depth, llvm::raw_ostream& out) const {
case Kind::If: {
const auto& if_stmt = cast<If>(*this);
out << "if (" << if_stmt.condition() << ")\n";
if_stmt.then_statement().PrintDepth(depth - 1, out);
if (if_stmt.else_statement()) {
if_stmt.then_block().PrintDepth(depth - 1, out);
if (if_stmt.else_block()) {
out << "\nelse\n";
(*if_stmt.else_statement())->PrintDepth(depth - 1, out);
(*if_stmt.else_block())->PrintDepth(depth - 1, out);
}
break;
}
@@ -97,8 +97,8 @@ void Statement::PrintDepth(int depth, llvm::raw_ostream& out) const {
if (depth < 0 || depth > 1) {
out << "\n";
}
if (block.statement()) {
(*block.statement())->PrintDepth(depth, out);
if (block.sequence()) {
(*block.sequence())->PrintDepth(depth, out);
if (depth < 0 || depth > 1) {
out << "\n";
}