In #3064, code was changed to look at a future token. This is an issue
because the parser is set up to enforce that tokens aren't used without
being consumed. That's part of #3118; related validation fails. Also,
since it's not necessarily the open paren that was consumed, it could be
a different opening symbol, which the closing symbol handling doesn't
check.
Under this approach, it's tracked whether an open paren was consumed,
and the open paren is associated with the state. That's more aligned
with how the parser expects to be fed information.
In paren condition handling for if and while, I'm also adding some
special casing for `if {` in particular to not assume the `{` is a
struct. I just think that this will come up somewhat often and the
resulting output is better this way (an error either way). I'm not doing
similar with `for` because there's already some `var` handling there,
and I'd need a little more time to think about structure -- whereas
right now I'm just trying to fix the crashes (`if {}`, `if []`, etc).
Fixes#3118
The goal of this change is to start refactoring the monolithic file into separate files that will hopefully pose fewer conflicts for developers, and make it easier to skip to handling of specific functionality. It additionally addresses a scaling issue with parser.cpp where the file would continue to get larger as more features are added.
Switches Parser to a ParserContext, moves handlers to be free functions, and moves the controller logic into ParseTree. parser_handle_states.h does the declarations for handlers and little else; handlers are split out to individual files based on prefix (which is deliberately authored to cluster).
A couple things I'm avoiding based on historical discussion are:
- Having a subdirectory for all the handlers, such as `toolchain/parser/handlers/call_expression.cpp`
- Putting handlers in a namespace, such as `Carbon::ParserHandler::CallExpression`.
- The name of `Carbon::ParserHandlerCallExpression` is then necessary to minimize the chance of conflicts with semantics and lowering, where everything can be expected to be named similarly.
I'm globbing handlers because it seems hard to see missed ones under this approach -- names are too boilerplate.
I think this current setup could be split into target-per-file, but I'm not sure that's needed, so I'd delay until it becomes a build-time issue.
Jon Ross-Perkins
Geoff RomerandRichard Smith