At present, `var *;` is a crash because it has errors that weren't being properly stored/handled. This changes the handling to give more to track invalid parses in patterns.
This makes it possible to specify both deduced and regular parameters on types. It reorganizes the handling of parameter lists in order to allow more reuse of code in this approach. Both functions and types use the new DeclarationNameAndParams handling. Overall the goal here is to take advantage of commonality in structure.
Regarding destructors, the likely approach would be to use ParameterListAsDeduced directly because `destructor` is a keyword with no declaration name and no regular parameters.
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`.
Depends on #2646
Right now, deduced parameter handling is very narrow to `self` support. This folds it into pattern handling, which should eventually be a superset of deduced parameter support, so this will avoid more duplication of logic.
Note, this subtly adds handling of multiple deduced parameters, but not generic parameters (`:!`) so it's still not quite right.
The comment on FunctionParameterFinish is actually correct (`1. FunctionParameter`), just a typo in the implementation. It specifically failed parsing at the comma after the 2nd param, regardless of whether there were more params.
- Finishes remaining "todo" parse nodes.
- Improving error recovery for invalid designators and structs, so that the parse tree still looks similar to a valid parse tree.
- Call expressions now have the thing being called as a child (of the start) instead of a sibling.
- Use of Start is replacing use of End in several parse nodes, like structs and call expressions.
- Adjusting documentation of parse node structures in an attempt to make it more consistent and understandable.
- The current state for interfaces and if/else is mostly being documented, not altered.
When there's no semicolon for an invalid EmptyDeclaration, rather than producing nothing, produce an EmptyDeclaration with the original location that led to the error.
Note this removes a direct edit (the only one) of the parse tree's error state. Elsewhere it's an indirection from adding an error node.
This changes `return`, `break`, and `continue` to treat the keyword as the "start" and semicolon as the "parent", essentially bracketing the keyword.
Pragmatically this is focusing on making `return` work with only one ParseNodeKind: because `return` and `;` now bracket the expression, we can tightly determine whether the `return` has arguments without looking at subtree size. However, it's possible that `break` and `continue` may in the future take some kind of label as an argument, so the consistency seems beneficial there too.
Note this eliminates the StatementEnd ParseNodeKind, as it's obsolete with this change.
The ParseTree comments say that preorder is "easier to visualize and read". The problem is, both the ParseTree and Semantics need to operate on the postorder traversal: the ParseTree during construction, and the Semantics during processing. As a consequence, understanding the postorder traversal is important, but it's also very hard to decipher when presented preorder. This PR provides a way to see the postorder, with helpful indents to show subtrees.
This retains the preorder printing as an option for people who prefer that. I'm pretty sure it'll be easier to debug tests if we can see the postorder, so I'm making that the default.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
In summary - some of the changes here are focused on producing the same test results for SemanticsIR, but I think the next step will be to change the SemanticsIR structure to reduce how much is added to the traversal stack.
Switching semantics to a postorder traversal is intended to be more efficient. The traversal stack is to eliminate risk of recursion limits within the semantic analysis that could come from layered code structures. However, we need to start considering the implications for type-checking and what the ParseTree looks like, as well as copying of data here.
As we start thinking about type-checking in SemanticsIR, it's helpful for a function to know its own signature in order to perform lookup recursive calls. The challenge in the post-order walk without this change is it doesn't know it's in a function definition (or similar) until it reaches the FunctionDeclaration; this restructures so that either:
1. For a declaration, the signature is a child of FunctionDeclaration(";")
2. For a definition, the signature is a child of FunctionDefinitionStart("{") which pairs with FunctionDefinition("}"), replacing CodeBlock.
This similarly reorients CodeBlock to be CodeBlockStart("{") as the first child of CodeBlock("}"). I'm not doing that with ParameterList here just because it affects a bit more, and felt like it could be delayed.
Overall, my goal is making the postorder traversal more intuitive along scope boundaries. I think we may also not need subtree_size, so I'm avoiding use of that now.
Currently the SemanticsIRFactory implementation is less clean than I might like (there are a couple comments to this point), but I was starting to feel like a more complete rewrite would be appropriate rather than trying to clean it up further: in particular, I think the node structures are off, but changing them is significant and also changes test output; in turn it may also warrant more substantial ParseTree changes. If you prefer from a reviewer POV, I can do a more complete rewrite.
This switch is being done in order to make it easier to update tests when the parse tree structure changes. I've been spending a lot of time doing such updates as part of refactoring the parse tree, and I expect more, so that's really at the root of all the refactoring I've been doing to lit updates.
Jon Ross-Perkins
