Note this makes a few cases where the Statement was optional explicit (Block, If, Sequence). I do add a few CHECKs around where statements were optional and assumed but unverified.
I switch TypeCheckStmt to not take an optional Statement because I think it makes the call sites clearer in behavior. It's also a smaller change than the converse, because taking an optional Statement means the returned statement would also need to be optional. Arguably a wrapper for optional statements could be added, but this still seems cleaner to me, and there aren't that many cases of an optional statement.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
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.
This enables the interpreter logic to express its intent more directly, especially in the common cases, and enables us to get rid of ValAction. It's also a step toward simplifying and encapsulating `state->stack`.
This also eliminates the ctad wrapper for Stack: I think the leaning is to remove it. It felt worth keeping the constructor because constructing with a single element is a common use-case.
Adds a single-argument constructor for Scope because the `std::list<std::string>()` is common, and eliding it is consistent with what we've done for things like tuples.
I was considering a vector constructor due to the double-Push on line 1139, but thought the Push() semantics may mean that it's better not to provide.
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>
This creates a ReturnExpression. A separate change should enforce that an implicit return of `()` is only allowed in functions that have an implicit return type of `()`, and I think the structure taken here should ease that.
`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>
This is intended to:
- Standardize use of line_num (and highlight where no line_num is available).
- Standardize indications of runtime/compilation errors.
- Make it incrementally easier to write new errors.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
I was looking for something like this, I think it's a straightforward simplification for code. Internally, it handles skipping the separator on the first print.
See the bottom of: https://llvm.org/doxygen/StringExtras_8h_source.html
- Switch code to llvm::raw_ostream as part of standardizing output forms.
- Preferring llvm::raw_ostream over std::ostream because other tooling code should be expected to rely on llvm more closely, and an overall preference towards library consistency.
- There are a couple spots in syntax/ that still use std streams, but I'd prefer to take a separate PR to see how best to address those.
- std::boolalpha doesn't work with llvm, so I've implemented equivalent in a couple places (not enough that it felt like worth making a helper function).
- Implement Print(ostream) as consistently as we can, as an instance member.
- This facilitates the use of the common/ostream.h template to provide operators.
- Preferring this approach so that Print is easily accessible via gdb, per suggestion on #executable-semantics.
- Switch code currently calling `type->Print(ostream)` to instead do `ostream << *type`.
- Remove the unused `PrintTypeEnv`, nothing used it and the declaration didn't match the definition.
- Move Heap and Frame/Scope to their own headers.
- Move some functions to more appropriate headers (e.g. CopyValue -> value.h).
- Define a separate Bazel rule for each header/cpp pair.
- Modify PrintValue to not print the frames of a ContinuationValue. This was necessary to break a dependency cycle between PrintValue, PrintFrame, and Action::Print.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Note this makes some structural choices that I'm not sure how popular they'll be... Most notably, I could remove `DeclarationKind` because I'm using `std::visit` and `Declaration::Visitor` in reality. I could go to `switch(tag())` instead, but I'm wondering if this approach will be well received for the separation of ownership. Alternatively, I could move `Declaration` around so that it actually implements the things like `TopLevel` -- I did feel weird with the old structure of typecheck.cpp implementing members of declaration.h, though.
We will eventually need the ability to materialize temporaries eventually, but we don't really seem to need it yet, and when we do, I think we should do it in a way that gives uniform treatment to temporaries and local variables.
Also:
- Switch data members, and associated parameters and return types to be values/references rather than pointers, where applicable.
- Move Expression's TagVisitor to anonymous namespace, to avoid name collision.
- Switch to trailing return syntax (per style guide).
Pretty much any names will be awkward, since these types represent cases where an `Expression` is not an expression, and a `Value` is not a value, but we can at least be more explicit about the fact that they represent bindings rather than variable usages.
- `Kind` enumerator names always match the corresponding factory function, accessor, and type names (if any).
- All abbreviations in those names are expanded.
- Those names always have a suffix to disambiguate expressions from values.
`VarTV` is excluded from these changes because there's a pending PR to remove it.
* moved most of logic from HandleValue into the Step functions
* removed the HandleValue function
* added some comments
* responses to Geoffrey
* move increment of act->pos out of the step logic for value actions
* changed act->pos to start at 0 and not have any gaps
* Update executable_semantics/interpreter/action.h
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
* update comment based on Geoffrey's suggestion
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Jon MeowandGeoff Romer
Jeremy G. SiekandJon Meow