This PR renames parse nodes on a Name/NameExpression taxonomy. NameExpressions occur in a name context. The difference is that in non-expression contexts it's useful to return the identifier / string ID for adding to name lookup, whereas in expression contexts it's useful to return the resolved node ID for consistency with other expressions.
In the code, I do note SelfValueName is returned in the expression context: I'd expect this to change, as `self` in `[self: Self]` versus `self.Foo()` will probably be best handled similarly to the above. That means that, in the proposed taxonomy, both `SelfValueName` and `SelfValueNameExpression` will exist in order to assist semantics.
To contrast choices:
Original | Current | [zygoloid suggestion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1121581663399464970) | [This PR](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1121814551789318215)
--- | --- | --- | ---
DeclaredName/DesignatedName | Identifier | NameComponent | Name
NameReference | NameReference | NameReference | NameExpression
SelfValueIdentifier | SelfValueIdentifier | SelfValueReference | SelfValueName
SelfTypeIdentifier | SelfTypeIdentiifer | SelfTypeReference | SelfTypeNameExpression
This is just a simplification: I think these different forms are getting in the way more than they're helping, particularly as I was looking into namespace functionality. The handling in semantics can be identical, providing a more uniform behavior.
The intent of this change is that instead of paths looking like `explorer/testdata/foo/bar.carbon` (repo-relative), they're now just `bar.carbon` (local). The consequence is that paths should be a bit more durable in various environments, and just paths should be shorter and easier to read.
The explorer's prelude is an exception to this since it comes from data, rather than being the test target. Due to the change in approaches, it needs the regex again.
Uses #2829
This builds on #2814 by adding the test framework to the toolchain. On Linux, this is 7s -> 4s for me. #2811 has more detailed timing for the explorer, which also had more dramatic changes because it's about 3x more tests run in 2x as many ways (6x total).
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
We could similarly add others -- this is intended to make it easy to add more that parse essentially the same.
The functionality expected is that types will use GetDeclarationContext in order to error on certain functionality in the declaration scope loop. e.g., with how constraints and interfaces currently don't allow definitions.
I've only moved out `package` because it's only valid on the top line. It might still be good to parse it later, but with slightly different logic because it would always be an error, and the declaration context isn't quite the right framing for that.
Also unifies some errors with `fn`.
The comments in parse_node_kind.def capture the change being made here.
Before:
```
// _external_: DeclaredName
// InterfaceBodyStart
// _external_: statements
// InterfaceBodyEnd
// InterfaceDefinition
```
After:
```
// InterfaceIntroducer
// DeclaredName
// InterfaceDefinitionStart
// _external_: declarations
// InterfaceDefinition
```
Really I just want to treat introduced things consistently. `var` defines my philosophy here: it doesn't always have a `DeclaredName`, so the `VarIntroducer` _must_ be the bounding node. By being consistent with that, I believe that overall the structure becomes easier to understand (that is, there are fewer inconsistencies to understand).
This also adds InterfaceDeclaration, since I think it can be predicted we'll have that, and it's helpful for making recover consistent with HandleDeclarationError.
Similarly, I'm also trying to standardize the loop processing a little with HandleDeclarationLoop. In the current approach, InterfaceDefinitionFinish isn't a necessary state, so I'm removing it.
First change towards re-implementing interfaces using the new parser. I kept it small to make sure we are on the same page regarding stack states and how the parse tree should look like.
Co-authored-by: ergawy <kareem.ergawy@guardsquare.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
Kareem Ergawyandergawy