Implement the toolchain side of proposal #7254, removing the `:!`
binding
syntax for generic and template parameters in favor of the keywords
`generic`,
`template`, and `runtime` plus contextual defaults for phase.
For valid programs this is semantics-preserving: each binding resolves
to the
same phase, and produces the same SemIR, as it did under `:!`/`:`. The
parser
derives a binding's phase from its syntactic context plus any explicit
phase
keyword; new diagnostics and error recovery for misused keywords are
described
below.
Implementation details for each component:
- Lexer: remove the `:!` (`ColonExclaim`) token, move its virtual
parse-node
budget onto `:`, and add the `generic` and `runtime` keywords.
- Parser: thread a `BindingContext` (`ExplicitParam`, `DeducedParam`, or
`CompileTimeEntityParam`) from declaration introducers down through
parameter
lists to each binding pattern, using a one-token lookahead to
distinguish a
name-qualifier parameter list from a declaration's own final list.
Parameters
of a compile-time entity (`class`, `interface`, `constraint`, `choice`,
`alias`, `export`, `namespace`) and deduced `[]` parameters default to
checked
generic; explicit function parameters and local bindings default to
runtime.
`HandleBindingPattern` resolves the phase from that context plus the
keyword: a
`generic` keyword needs no node of its own (the phase is carried by the
binding's node kind), while a `runtime` keyword is preserved as a
`RuntimeBindingName` node so `check` can name it in a diagnostic. A
phase
keyword that is merely redundant with the contextual default is
diagnosed
here, without invalidating the parse tree.
- Check: a phase keyword that is invalid for its context (for example
`runtime`
on a checked-generic parameter) is diagnosed here, and recovers by
building an
error binding that still introduces the name so that later uses of it do
not
produce cascading errors.
The removed `:!` syntax is now rejected as an ordinary parse error.
The `form`/`:?`/`->?` ("extended types") portion of proposal #7254 is
left for a
separate change.
Assisted-by: Claude Code
When parsing a pattern, if we encounter something that isn't pattern
syntax, try parsing as an expression instead. We only need one-token
lookahead to distinguish pattern syntax from expression syntax.
Track a precedence group through pattern parsing so that we can allow
different kinds of expressions in a top-level pattern (such as the
operand of `let`) and in a nested pattern (such as a subpattern of a
tuple pattern or within grouping parens). For example, we do not allow
`case if ...`, and for now I've chosen to also not allow logical or
relational operators at the top level of a pattern, so `case 1 + 1` is
OK, but `case 1 == 1` and `case true and false` require parentheses.
This decision should be ratified or revisited by a design proposal.
Very basic check support is also provided, only sufficient to form an
`ExprPattern` instruction and nothing beyond that. For now, all pattern
matching against an `ExprPattern` fails with a TODO error. To support
that, I've switched from calling `BeginSubpattern` in the parent handler
of a pattern and `EndSubpatternAs*` in the pattern handler itself to
calling both functions in parent handlers, with `EndSubpattern`
converting an expression into an expression pattern where needed.
Depends on #6976.
Assisted-by: Gemini via Google Antigravity
Chandler Carruth
Richard Smith
Burak EmirandDana Jansens