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 change ensures that a function signature always starts with an
`IdentifierNameMaybeBeforeSignature` node (renamed from
`IdentifierNameBeforeParams`), even in the case of function declarations
like `fn F -> T` that have no parameter list. As a consequence, this
ensures that we push new entries onto `pattern_block_stack` and
`full_pattern_stack` when we start processing the function signature.
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.
Geoff Romer
Richard Smith
