This PR renames parse nodes on a Name/NameExpression taxonomy. NameExpressions occur in a name context. The difference is that in non-expression contexts it's useful to return the identifier / string ID for adding to name lookup, whereas in expression contexts it's useful to return the resolved node ID for consistency with other expressions.
In the code, I do note SelfValueName is returned in the expression context: I'd expect this to change, as `self` in `[self: Self]` versus `self.Foo()` will probably be best handled similarly to the above. That means that, in the proposed taxonomy, both `SelfValueName` and `SelfValueNameExpression` will exist in order to assist semantics.
To contrast choices:
Original | Current | [zygoloid suggestion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1121581663399464970) | [This PR](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1121814551789318215)
--- | --- | --- | ---
DeclaredName/DesignatedName | Identifier | NameComponent | Name
NameReference | NameReference | NameReference | NameExpression
SelfValueIdentifier | SelfValueIdentifier | SelfValueReference | SelfValueName
SelfTypeIdentifier | SelfTypeIdentiifer | SelfTypeReference | SelfTypeNameExpression
This is just a simplification: I think these different forms are getting in the way more than they're helping, particularly as I was looking into namespace functionality. The handling in semantics can be identical, providing a more uniform behavior.
This builds on #2814 by adding the test framework to the toolchain. On Linux, this is 7s -> 4s for me. #2811 has more detailed timing for the explorer, which also had more dramatic changes because it's about 3x more tests run in 2x as many ways (6x total).
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
The ParseTree comments say that preorder is "easier to visualize and read". The problem is, both the ParseTree and Semantics need to operate on the postorder traversal: the ParseTree during construction, and the Semantics during processing. As a consequence, understanding the postorder traversal is important, but it's also very hard to decipher when presented preorder. This PR provides a way to see the postorder, with helpful indents to show subtrees.
This retains the preorder printing as an option for people who prefer that. I'm pretty sure it'll be easier to debug tests if we can see the postorder, so I'm making that the default.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
In summary - some of the changes here are focused on producing the same test results for SemanticsIR, but I think the next step will be to change the SemanticsIR structure to reduce how much is added to the traversal stack.
Switching semantics to a postorder traversal is intended to be more efficient. The traversal stack is to eliminate risk of recursion limits within the semantic analysis that could come from layered code structures. However, we need to start considering the implications for type-checking and what the ParseTree looks like, as well as copying of data here.
As we start thinking about type-checking in SemanticsIR, it's helpful for a function to know its own signature in order to perform lookup recursive calls. The challenge in the post-order walk without this change is it doesn't know it's in a function definition (or similar) until it reaches the FunctionDeclaration; this restructures so that either:
1. For a declaration, the signature is a child of FunctionDeclaration(";")
2. For a definition, the signature is a child of FunctionDefinitionStart("{") which pairs with FunctionDefinition("}"), replacing CodeBlock.
This similarly reorients CodeBlock to be CodeBlockStart("{") as the first child of CodeBlock("}"). I'm not doing that with ParameterList here just because it affects a bit more, and felt like it could be delayed.
Overall, my goal is making the postorder traversal more intuitive along scope boundaries. I think we may also not need subtree_size, so I'm avoiding use of that now.
Currently the SemanticsIRFactory implementation is less clean than I might like (there are a couple comments to this point), but I was starting to feel like a more complete rewrite would be appropriate rather than trying to clean it up further: in particular, I think the node structures are off, but changing them is significant and also changes test output; in turn it may also warrant more substantial ParseTree changes. If you prefer from a reviewer POV, I can do a more complete rewrite.
This switch is being done in order to make it easier to update tests when the parse tree structure changes. I've been spending a lot of time doing such updates as part of refactoring the parse tree, and I expect more, so that's really at the root of all the refactoring I've been doing to lit updates.
Jon Ross-Perkins
