Instead, use the inst category to select the right block stack. This
simplifies the API for adding insts, and in subsequent changes it will
enable certain inst kinds like `SpliceInst` to seamlessly function as
either procedural insts or pattern insts.
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
This follows up on a discussion about wanting to use `Any*` inst
clusters to handle boilerplate construction, with the issue that
`UncheckedLoc` use removes validation. Some context is at
https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/6930#discussion_r2963157428.
This folds in `MakeImportedLocIdAndInst` because the logic is related,
particularly for `LocId` values which are `ImportIRInstId`, and it
eliminates questions of what the right function is to use.
This uncovers an error in the `NodeKind` associated with
`FormBindingPattern`. For now I'm just adding a TODO regarding that.
Assisted-by: Google Antigravity with Gemini
This enables some nice simplifications, and it's also a step toward a
broader restructuring of binding and parameter patterns.
Assisted-by: Gemini 3.1 Pro via Antigravity
This is a step toward removing the index from `InitForm`, so that equal
form values always have equal representations.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Implementation of unused pattern bindings #2022, continued.
Whereas previous PR #6460 took care of parsing, and PR #6479 prepared
the stage by using _ in some test cases, this PR has the the actual
implementation, using a simple dataflow analysis.
---------
Co-authored-by: Burak Emir <bqe@google.com>
Co-authored-by: jonmeow <jperkins@google.com>
Not all functions have a return slot, and once we have composite forms,
functions will be able to have any number of return slots. Obtaining a
unique return slot for a function only makes sense in `returned var`
handling.
This approach is more robust because there's no intermediate state where
the `ParamPattern` insts have been created, but don't yet have their
final values.
For now, map C++ reference types to const-qualified Carbon pointer types
rather than picking between a (non-const) pointer or a value type. This
fixes misbehavior in lowering for reference members in classes and
reference return types.
Update the special-case handling for references as function parameters
so that it continues to map const reference parameters to Carbon
pass-by-value, and unify the code paths for `self` parameters and other
parameters, which were mostly doing the same thing but had some subtle
differences.
Add references to the list of types that we can pass to and from C++
directly, without needing an additional layer of thunks.
This resolves a TODO in `expr_info.cpp` by using the inst kind rather
than the bound value to track the binding's category.
Since we're churning all the `bind_name` insts in testdata anyway, I'm
also taking this opportunity to align the inst naming with the design's
terminology, by calling these insts "bindings" (this aspect of the PR is
dependent on #6231 resolving an ambiguity in that terminology). For
consistency we'll need to rename several other insts as well (see the
TODO on `RefBinding`); I'm deferring that to a separate PR to minimize
the review load, but I think those name changes are in-scope for this
review.
Although this focused on `Destroy` support, some choices here around
`implicit_type_impls` are because copy/move will likely follow a similar
approach. I'm trying not to predict too much about how we'll structure
those, but I'm putting `Destroy` impl logic in a file that could perhaps
be shared with those. They'd likely be interested in similar things,
e.g. traversing members of types (particularly class, struct literal,
tuple literal).
At present this sets the destroy function as `no_op` which is consistent
with current logic, but has a TODO to correctly define.
Constant importing for functions changes slightly due to some issues I
was having with `GetFunctionType`. zygoloid suggested this approach to
avoid `EvalInst` logic.
Adds a flag for controlling whether to generating these impls. While
this does generation for `class`, as noted above this'll also need to be
done for tuples and struct literals, which would leave the `none.carbon`
min_prelude unable to use any types. Note if destruction *would* occur,
it'll still look up `Core.Destroy` for that and fail, but that's already
true of any test using `none.carbon`. I'm trying to use the flag to see
if we can keep `none.carbon` working mostly-consistently.
I'd tried separating out the flag to #5852, but that got a lot of
pushback over whether the behavior was appropriate. I'm hoping that the
interactions here make it clearer why the particular approach -- the
goal is not to enable advanced testing, or create some new end-user
behavior that we really support, it's just to keep no-prelude tests
functional. The main question raised there was why not just keep
generating `impl T as Core.Destroy` if `fn destroy` is present -- but I
think here it should be apparent that would require additional
complexity, as the generation of `impl T as Core.Destroy` is not
currently conditioned based on the implementation of `fn destroy`. I'd
rather add complexity to this flag only if it's enabling interesting
test functionality.
---------
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Add check support for `for` loops following #1885. This also adds a
basic `Optional` type to the prelude, as that's necessary to support the
new `Iterate` interface.
Depends on #5688, #5697. Those PRs aren't stacked here, but this change
will crash until they land.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Geoff Romer
Richard Smith
Jon Ross-Perkins
