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 opens up a path for switching `int line_num` to a `Location loc`, which I want to do for tracking filenames of code. But I don't think we should have a default constructor on `Location` to avoid mistakes, and switching FunctionDefinition to an arena alloc seems more consistent anyways.
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>
- 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.
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.
Slowly bringing this into line with Bison's C++ example parser
so we can use strong semantic values for symbols rather than
leaking pointers. First step is to thread a `ParseAndLexContext`
object through the whole syntactic analysis state, like the
example has. In the example, it's called `driver`.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Jon MeowandGeoff Romer
Jeremy G. Siek
Dave AbrahamsandGeoff Romer