Still needs more merge/redeclaration logic for import semantics, but
this felt like a reasonable point to send a PR.
---------
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This was previously discussed at
https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1209975051588210729.
I'm initiating this mainly because we typically use "id" suffixes to
indicate an `IdBase` being passed around and the non-id suffix of
`parse_node` suggests at it carrying more data than it actually does.
There used to be more reason for avoiding `node_id` because
`SemIR::InstId` used to be named `NodeId`, but that's no longer
necessary. As a consequence, I'd like to rename `parse_node` to more
precisely reflect its type.
In full, this is doing:
```
parse_node_kind -> node_kind
parse_node -> node_id
ParseNodeCategory -> NodeCategory
ParseNodeKind -> NodeKind
ParseNode -> NodeId
```
This is primarily in check and sem_ir, but with some `parse_node_kind`
references in parse too.
Pluralization is consistent with name forms on both sides, so that
wasn't part of my replacements.
This doesn't add full support. I'm separating it out to make the effects
of the modifier changes clearer for review. I'm restructuring a little
with the expectation that we'll have some more categories of modifier
keywords in the future (similar to `extern`, these may not be in a "set"
such as access), and thus easily scaling up to a few more would be
useful.
Previously, we created scopes for implicit parameter lists and tuple
patterns, but that meant that bindings went out of scope too soon. We
now keep them in scope until the end of the enclosing declaration. This
is accomplished by pushing a scope for parameters when we handle a name
that might have them, and then popping the scope again if it turns out
that there were no parameters.
For a case such as:
```carbon
fn A(T:! type).B(U:! type).F(x: T, y: U) {
var z: T;
}
```
... we now have the following scopes in the stack:
- A parameter scope containing `T`.
- A class scope for `A(T:! type)`.
- A parameter scope containing `U`.
- A class scope for `A(T:! type).B(U:! type)`.
- A parameter scope containing `x: T` and `y: U`.
- A function body scope containing `z: T`.
The innermost scope when check processes a declaration of a function,
class, or similar is now often a parameter scope rather than the
enclosing scope in which the class or function is declared, so the
target scope is now passed explicitly into the modifier checking code
that wants to inspect that enclosing scope.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandChandler Carruth
Richard Smith
josh11b