A few changes:
- Merge content from the `primitive_types.md` design doc into the overall design `README.md` since there was so much overlap and no need for two copies.
- Consistently spell integer types `Carbon.Int(N)` and `Carbon.UInt(N)`, including the `Carbon.` prefix and avoiding `Unsigned(N)`.
- Consistently use a comprehensive set of floating-point types.
- Incorporates #2015 into the design docs.
A number of smaller changes grouped together in one proposal:
- Make `Self` a keyword.
- Clarify that `Self` refers to the current type in a base class and in impl declarations.
- Clarify when `.Self` is legal, and what type it has.
- Also specify that `where` is not an associative operator.
Previous overview is changed to an introduction that includes a modified first example, and adding a brief tour of Carbon in the form of an explanation of the features demonstrated in that example. Also update to reflect that we expect `Print` to be available in some package imported by default, which we are currently calling `Carbon`.
Co-authored-by: Wolff Dobson <wolffg@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Use `"` for simple string literals and `'''` for block string literals.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This removes the separate data files, which have been failing to load properly ([example](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/runs/7957047892?check_suite_focus=true)). This one wasn't working previously, but hopefully will with these changes (and it might've also just been a pull_request_target issue, but the silent "Resource not accessible by integration" failures aren't great).
This is being done because Projects v1 requires repo write access, a serious limitation for letting people use it. Projects v2 isn't a great option because it lacks event support. Labels are pretty stable in GitHub, so this switches to that.
Note this assumes we're fine renaming "decision: accepted" -> "proposal accepted", etc. There are two reasons for this:
1) To make it clear that this is a proposal-specific label, versus something like an issue for leads label.
2) Removing the colon because it was causing trouble with yaml syntax.
This also adds the "proposal draft" label, mainly to complete the taxonomy.
I was considering whether this should be a proposal itself, but it feels like maybe it's not necessary because it's a fairly low-key infrastructure change, and I'm not sure how much people were relying on the project board anyways.
I tested this in a personal repo, basically just poking at https://github.com/jonmeow/test/pull/2
Also references were added to clarify that some features are not provisional.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Note, partly writing this down to make sure everyone's in agreement with what's written.
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Part of #1902Fixes#1904
Regarding #1904, using #access-requests because I've decided I feel weird using any other channel for this (including #proposal-prs-and-process)
Trying to do this without affecting too much. I think we've generally considered this to be part of "refactoring tools", since large-scale refactoring is assisted by automatic formatting, but formatting is visible enough that it's probably worth addressing directly.
Fixes https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1656
The most significant change here is that explorer now uses the chosen spelling
rather than the old `Bool` spelling. Also update a few documentation examples
and some skeletal design docs to use the chosen spelling.
The toolchain embeds the assumption that `clang` and `llvm-ar` are
adjacent, which may not be true on all host platforms. Moreover,
in #1842 and #1843, we test if Homebrow LLVM is in `PATH` by checking
that `llvm-ar` is adjacent to `clang` and if it isn't, we `fail()` the
build, even if `llvm-ar` *is* in `PATH`.
Instead, actually check `PATH` with `repository_ctx.which`. This however
necessitates the assumption that `llvm-ar` and other LLVM binutils
are adjacent, and subsequently that `clang` and `ld.lld` are adjacent.
It appears that we don't seem to always be using these tools, but we
should avoid embedding wrong assumptions regardless.
Update docs to reflect this change.
The original sentence was grammatically unsound, specified the three options of copy, move or pointer binding in parenthesis and some words around it.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Replace the "why we don't want to discuss things" question with three
questions covering substantially the same topic. Try to strike a balance
between inviting participation and feedback while still making it clear
that the evolution process produces "firm" decisions.
Address issue #1833.
> The only issue that I currently have with this one is that the `clangd` extension is having some hiccups, not being able to find includes like `<gmock/gmock.h>` and `<benchmark/benchmark.h>` and thus showing extra errors. However, this only affects the VSCode extension and bazel seems to work fine.
This might be an issue with the compilation database: you might try ./scripts/create_compdb.py to help.
This provides a natural place for questions about the specifics of how to
contribute effectively, which, near term, is probably where the FAQ will
grow the most near term. This allows the other headings to remain more
focused on their original questions.
Move two existing questions to the new place without changing their
content: "What are the prerequisites for contributing [...]?" and "Why
aren't people willing to discuss certain topics [...]?".
Fixes#1527
On Debian, the zlib1g-dev package is required to build and should be given as a requirement.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
We've observed the following things cropping up regularly enough to
address as 'frequently asked':
* Why isn't there a Carbon logo?
* Where should I ask questions?
* What are the prerequisites for building Carbon?
* Why aren't people willing to discuss certain topics?
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
The previous implementation model involved the caller of a function knowing what impls the function will need. With the addition of blanket impls and specialization to the design, that is in general no longer possible. Instead the caller provides a type which is used as a key to look up the impl, which is expected to occur during monomorphization, though we allow the compiler to employ other strategies when the set of impls is predictable.
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
josh11b
Richard Smith
Geoff RomerandJon Ross-Perkins
Prithvi Jamadagni
David Poliakoff
Adrien Leravat
Enzo Venturi
Dennis Onyeka
Asmi AgarwalandJon Ross-Perkins
Krishna Agarwal
cabmeurer
3405691582
Shakeel MahateandJon Ross-Perkins
Matt Armstrong
MarchMore
Vitalii
Vaishnavi JoshiandJon Ross-Perkins
yale
SADIK KUZU
Dan Sarginson
