Similar to #3705, we actually have a mix of `Make` and `Create` in
factory functions too, so this PR is normalizing on `Make`. It's
intended to be consistent with the naming choice for Carbon factory
functions.
Note, MakeSyntheticBlock is the only one I feel a little weird about
because llvm's own APIs use Create, and this is essentially wrapping
LLVM calls. But the flipside is it also feels like a vague line to draw,
when we also differ from LLVM coding style in other ways.
Per [#toolchain
discussion](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1176632520834560211)
We'd at one point been trying to put `[[nodiscard]]` everywhere, but
then we stopped because it had felt verbose without finding many issues
(plus, people plain forgot to add it). Some history in #888.
Since newer code gets added without it, we now have code like:
```
auto GetLineInfo(Line line) -> LineInfo&;
[[nodiscard]] auto GetLineInfo(Line line) const -> const LineInfo&;
auto AddLine(LineInfo info) -> Line;
auto GetTokenInfo(Token token) -> TokenInfo&;
[[nodiscard]] auto GetTokenInfo(Token token) const -> const TokenInfo&;
auto AddToken(TokenInfo info) -> Token;
[[nodiscard]] auto GetTokenPrintWidths(Token token) const -> PrintWidths;
```
Here, the lack of `[[nodiscard]]` doesn't mean anything: for example,
`GetLineInfo` should not have its result discarded if it's called. But
the mix could be confusing for readers.
As a resolution, remove the attribute. `[[nodiscard]]` should be treated
like other attributes going forward, which essentially means "avoid in
general, add a comment to explain why the attribute is needed" rather
than use-as-default.
With the toolchain splitting namespaces, ostream.h's `operator<<`
templates aren't reliably found with name lookup, likely due to the loss
of associated namespaces (zygoloid commented on this at
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/3161#discussion_r1307941999).
This is especially a barrier to moving the lex files into `Carbon::Lex`;
versus other parts of the toolchain, they contain more printable types
which are used cross-namespace, including `Carbon::Testing`. As a
consequence, I'm looking at migrating ostream.h to a more reliable
approach that doesn't rely as much on everything being in the `Carbon`
namespace.
Continuing on #3070.
I moved ParseTree::Node to just Parse::Node, versus Parse::Tree::Node.
Other name changes are just removing "Parse" or "Parser" prefixes.
In EnumBase, I'm directly defining operator<< because the ostream.h
approach just isn't working, not for either of Parse::State nor
Parse::NodeKind. Errors look like:
```toolchain/parser/parser_context.cpp:449:34: error: invalid operands to binary expression ('llvm::raw_ostream' and 'const Carbon::Parse::State')
output << "\t" << i << ".\t" << entry.state;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~
```
The expected template in `Carbon::` is not in the error list; I only see
the:
```
./common/ostream.h:112:6: note: candidate template ignored: requirement 'std::is_base_of_v<std::ostream, llvm::raw_ostream>' was not satisfied [with S = llvm::raw_ostream, T = Carbon::Parse::State]
auto operator<<(S& standard_out, const T& value) -> S& {
^
```
I'm still prodding at this, but not seeing an obvious fix.
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
The different approach to Names avoids the issues with trying to define
a static member (or also member function) of the templated instance of
Carbon::Internal::EnumBase from a non-enclosing namespace such as
Carbon::SemIR.
Note, I'm trying to do this from the cpp file. An alternative might be
to do `inline constexpr llvm::StringLiteral Names[]` in the .h file, but
I think concerns had been raised about that needing deduplication.
I think there's more we can do here, but this seemed like a good
checkpoint to make sure the path I'm going down is roughly what you
expected. There's one actual edit in if expression structure to match
the increased enforcement.
This keeps all of our C++ code written in C++ source files, and avoids the increasing size of the RTTI generation script we'd started to see in #2699.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This was bugging me after I saw all the strings; it feels like this is why we have EnumBase on the toolchain side.
I've included the move of EnumBase to //common because I figured it's reasonable to evaluate together; if we don't want EnumBase in this case, it doesn't make sense to move.
Jon Ross-Perkins
josh11b
