These aren't really statements (because they're not executed at run time), and it's debatable whether they're declarations, since their primary purpose isn't to introduce a name. On Discord, "directive" seemed to be the consensus choice for an alternate term.
This is based on discussion on #732: that we should probably parse the invalid whitespace, then reject it as part of string validation, rather than having different parses. I worry the question of "how is this parsed" may lead to subtly unexpected results if we aren't consistent, so I'm switching the logic from the lexer to the unescape library (and also adjusting the list of rejected whitespace).
I've modified the text from the proposal slightly, focusing the overview more on a design setup, but mostly kept the details. One important thing here is I noticed that raw tab characters are disallowed -- this was a little buried before, and I've now updated the list of characters allowed in a string to exclude tabs. Additionally, I've noted `\0D` in the list of escapes as explicitly invalid.
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Recent experience indicates that the system of thumbs-up doesn't seem to
work consistently. Replace it with more broad encouragement to use PR
reactions to surface sentiment and a judgement call by the leads on when
a proposal is ready to merge.
An explicit goal here is that leads can make this judgement call
reflecting the nature of the proposal. Many of these are low-risk.
Either they are easily fixed-forward or minimally disruptive. This can
be because they are merely beginning to fill out a largely open area, or
because they are minor changes.
Also try to clarify that it is expected for the leads to sometimes miss
things or make mistakes, and encourage a revert or fix-forward mentality
rather than slowing down progress to reduce the rate of mistakes.
.pre-commit-config.yaml and proposals/p0540.md (linking goals.html, fixed to goals.md link) are the two references I could find.
The site is disabled, though; I think it makes the most sense to delete supporting code, and in the future hopefully we can use GH pages to publish.
- brew instead of pyenv to centralize package management
- can't recall why we used pyenv before, may not have been the best choice.
- pyenv has been a burden in updating versions, a single `brew upgrade` works better
- python3.9 because it's the latest and greatest, feels weird going to old versions if we're recommending installs.
- bazel 5.0.0 pre-release due to https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/commit/b9fc66d327debcfbdb2964afdba35a1cc8919b81
- earlier versions want `python` to be on the path, which pyenv did but brew does not
For most people this will mean: `rm -rf ~/.pyenv && brew uninstall pyenv && brew install python@3.9 && pip3 install -U pip && pip3 install pre-commit`, plus removing any `pyenv` invocations from the shell `rc` file.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Add support for nominal (or "named") classes with encapsulation. Inheritance will be in a later proposal. Here is an example of the proposed syntax:
```
class Circle {
fn Create(c: Point, r: f32) -> Self {
return {.center = c, .radius = r};
}
fn Diameter[me: Self]() -> f32 {
return me.radius * 2;
}
fn Expand[addr me: Self*](distance: f32);
private var center: Point;
private var radius: f32;
}
fn Circle.Expand[addr me: Self*](distance: f32) {
me->radius += distance;
}
```
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Moving "Global variables" out of "Alternatives"; I don't think it's really been considered in the same way that others have, so there's no reference to provide.
This proposal defines the very basics of `class` types, primarily focused on:
- use cases including: data classes, encapsulated types, inheritance with and without `virtual`, interfaces as base classes, and mixins for code reuse;
- anonymous data types for called _structural data classes_ or _struct types_. Struct literals are used to initialize class values and ad-hoc parameter and return types with named components; and
- future work, including the provisional syntax already in use for features that have not been decided.
The intent is to both make some small incremental progress and get agreement on direction. As such it doesn't include things like nominal types, methods, access control, inheritance, etc.
It proposes this struct type and literal syntax:
```
var p: {.x: Int, .y: Int} = {.x = 0, .y = 1};
```
Note that it uses commas (`,`) between fields instead of semicolons (`;`), and no introducer for types or literal values.
Incorporates decisions from #665 , #653 , #651
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This implements decision #565 to use `T:! Type` to declare generic parameters, and `template T:! Type` for template parameters.
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Establish a principle that understanding the meaning and performance should not depend on expensive context, and explain what makes context expensive.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Expand the description of the structure of a proposal PR. Clarify that
the full PR is the proposal, not only the P-numbered document. Start a
design style guide and use it to describe which parts of a proposal
should not end up in the design.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Propose the decision from #542, noting implementation from #563
Also integrates some of #339 into `variables.md` because that's actually how this started, looking for a proposal reference for #542
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
This avoids having the stacked PR get auto-closed in step 7, and clarifies that you need to merge from trunk to the formerly-stacked PR in order to avoid spurious diffs.
Now that LLVM 12 has been released we no longer have any need to
bootstrap LLVM to get the desired featureset. LLVM 12 is available
widely, including in Homebrew across multiple platforms and in the
GitHub action runners.
Sadly, the Linux distribution builds of LLVM-12 are largely broken and
not as useful for us. The Homebrew Linux install was also broken
originally, but I've worked extensively with the Homebrew folks to get
the Linux install into a really good shape. It should now work reliably.
There are two primary bugs in Linux LLVM packages that need to be fixed
before we can just use them:
- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43604
- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46321
Once those are addressed and point releases with the fixes widely
available we can further simplify things.
Even with the need to use Homebrew installs, using the released LLVM has
the extra advantage of making it easy to properly support Darwin ARM and
I've added that configuration so that I can test things there.
Last but not least, this will significantly shrink our build outputs
which should allow building much more in continuous integration on
GitHub actions without exceeding the action cache size limits. I've even
added several tweaks and adjustments to the compile and build flags to
improve the build performance and reduce the build output size.
Once this is landed and stable, we can consider adding the refactoring
tooling back to our CI.
One of the biggest downsides of this path is that our CI has to download
and install the LLVM toolchain from Homebrew on each run. This is pretty
slow (takes a couple of minutes). But it is a fixed overhead -- it won't
get worse over time. Eventually, we can either look at a much fancier
action configuration to avoid this or hopefully the Debian packages will
get updated and we can move back to those.
The bootstrapping has served us long enough at this point. We can
resurrect it if we ever find a compelling reason for breaking off of the
latest LLVM release as our host toolchain.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
To talk about generics as a programming language feature, you need a lot of
specialized terminology. We need to agree on the words we are using and their
meaning before we can meaningfully talk about the design of the feature itself.
There a number of problems a glossary solves:
Not everyone knows every term, so having a single place to look them up will
improve the ease of understanding, ease of contributing, and accessibility
of the project.
There may not be widespread agreement on the meaning of some terms. In
particular, individual programming languages tend to assign very specific
meanings to terms used within their ecosystem.
Some terms may be used in multiple ways, but we only use the term with one
specific meaning.
Some terms are our invention and we need to introduce them.
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
The "generics" feature of Carbon is a large design effort that needs to be broken up into manageable steps. The first thing we need is a high-level goals document. The goals here reflect the desirable properties that we have discovered as part of considering several alternative generics designs:
- Use cases:
- Generic programming
- Upgrade path from C++ abstract interfaces
- Dependency injection
- Generics instead of open overloading and ADL
- Performance
- Better compiler experience
- Encapsulation
- Predictability
- Dispatch control
- Upgrade path from templates
- Coherence
- No novel name lookup
- Learn from others
- Interfaces are nominal
- Interop and evolution
- Bridge for C++ customization points
Goals are summarized in [this presentation](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12yGyu5Pvdag7CJp-_yLVkmbhyvuRIilBTNlkO0LKaHo/edit?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-JB9yrUO4-6J8-zzGhnIyNg).
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Matthew Riley <mdriley@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: austern <austern@google.com>
Co-authored-by: Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr@gmail.com>
- Generally replace Discourse mentions with GitHub Discussions, per #444
- Switch from "Discord Chat" to just "Discord" because there's no more ambiguity, and "Discord" is the more common term.
- Fix mentions of "core team" to "Carbon leads" (because the touched docs overlap a lot).
Co-authored-by: Matthew Riley <mdriley@gmail.com>
A Carbon function that needs to report recoverable failures should return a sum type whose alternatives represent the success case and failure cases, such as Optional(T), Result(T, Error), or Bool. The function's successful return
value, and any metadata about the failure, should be embedded in the alternatives of the sum type, rather than reported by way of output parameters or other side channels. Carbon's design will prioritize making this form of error handling efficient and ergonomic.
Co-authored-by: josh11b <josh11b@users.noreply.github.com>
This matches the version on Ubuntu LTS and other OSes. The only problem
I found with it in our testing is that Bazel confusingly sets the locale
to use `LANG=en_US` by default which breaks UTF-8 support. We may need
to shift this on Windows, but this seems like a reasonable first step.
Co-authored-by: Jon Meow <46229924+jonmeow@users.noreply.github.com>
Geoff Romer
Jon Meow
Chandler Carruth
josh11bandChandler Carruth
Jeremy G. Siek
