Sorry about the big change, this is hard to split. ParenContents is used by both, templated, and expects the same pointer type. While I could duplicate ParenContents with some ExpressionParenContents or PatternParenContents, that seems a little kludgy versus a single large change handling both. The worst of it is that Expression is already pretty sweeping, Pattern is really just incrementally adding.
That said, I believe this includes a couple fixes I found with incorrect use of dyn_cast in typecheck.cpp (checked nullptr at the wrong step in 2 code locations). There's also a missing `*` in member.cpp this caught. I adjust passing of expressions for Return due to nullness (I felt adding another constructor was the best solution).
I add a `.Release()` to BisonWrap due to things like `$3.first` needing some way to work through BIsonWrap. I felt this was better than `operator->`, but feel free to comment if you prefer the other path (`.Release()` conveniently lets me do pair unwrapping, so it felt a better solution).
I do add a TODO to think about better Ptr-to-Ptr cast<> support too, though, as that doesn't work cleanly with LLVM's infra. But so far it seems to only come up in one spot, so I'm not prioritizing it.
It was in my mind to add String in order to support libraries in `package`. `print` is added in order to have a String go to stdout. I've tried to do `print` in a way that won't be too hard to add other printable types, but it's probably also somewhat optional here -- that is, if desired, I could remove it. But it was a lot easier to doublecheck `\n` behavior with it, and I suspect it'll be helpful in other tests if it supports more value types.
On the side, this also fixes dereferencing in Pattern/Expression Print() calls, which I was noticing printing pointers instead of values. This may be another argument for moving away from passing pointers, since this seems to be a difficult-to-catch error.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
`Pattern` is intended to pilot some changes I would like to apply to all our sum types:
- The alternatives are expressed as derived classes rather than members of a `std::variant`.
- The alternatives are classes in the [style guide sense](https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Structs_vs._Classes), meaning they can have invariants, but can't have public data members.
- Creating an object is expressed using a constructor rather than a factory function.
- Accessing an alternative is expressed as a cast (using LLVM's RTTI system) rather than `std::get` or a `Get` method.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Jon Meow
