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
Do not treat it as a 1-tuple pattern as we used to. The design indicates
that `(pattern)` is invalid, but this appears to be an oversight, and
grouping parens appear to be the intended interpretation.
---------
Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <gromer@google.com>
Use the same node kind for the body of `case` and `default` handlers. We
don't need to distinguish these in check, so don't create extra node
kinds for them.
In order to make the nodes properly delimited, make the label (`case
...` or `default`) nodes be children of the `=>` node rather than
siblings. This allows us to use the node kind of the `=>` as the
bracketing node for the complete handler, rather than having two
different bracketing node kinds, one for each kind of label.
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.
Parameter lists need substantially different treatment than tuple
patterns in other contexts, so this change splits them into separate
parse node kinds.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This removes some churn when adding new diagnostic cases to test files
(where previous to this change the newly added newline would cause the
previous diagnostic CHECKs to be updated including changes to the line
number because the CHECK for the blank line meant an extra line between
CHECK and source line).
A few alternatives discussed here:
https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1329573358475673723
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
This change splits `NodeKind::IdentifierName` into separate node kinds
depending on whether the identifier is followed by parameters, and
similarly splits `NameQualifier` based on whether the qualifier has
parameters. This enables us to only push a pattern block when it's
actually needed, rather than "defensively" pushing one when it might be
needed.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Also surround it in square brackets rather than parentheses. This
matches the format used by Clang and GCC, and means diagnostics will
still match the `file:line:col: error: ` pattern used by some IDE tools.
Before:
```console
fail_builtins.carbon:11:11: error(AliasRequiresNameRef): alias initializer must be a name reference
```
After:
```console
fail_builtins.carbon:11:11: error: alias initializer must be a name reference [AliasRequiresNameRef]
```
Also tighten up test regex to only match on `STDERR` lines that list a
file name.
This is to help identify which diagnostics we're actually using.
Note that driver/testdata still has tests which don't pass this flag,
and so continue to test the kind-less (default) behavior.
This is a primarily automated change:
- Search & replace for capitalization
-
`(CARBON_DIAGNOSTIC\((?:\n\s+)?\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s")([A-Z])`
- `$1\L$2`
- Search & replace for period
-
`(CARBON_DIAGNOSTIC\((?:\n\s+)?\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s\w+,(?:\n\s+)?\s"(?:[^)]|\n)+)\.("[,)])`
- `$1$2`
- Limited search & replace for `ERROR: ` -> `error: ` in streamed things
- Leaving a TODO for command_line because there's more cleanup that can
be done there
- Modify diagnostic_consumer.cpp
- ERROR -> error
- WARNING -> warning
---------
Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>
This has is a nice-to-have for me. Frequently I want to run a specific
test, and end up digging through output to be able to copy-paste the run
line. This uses TIP lines to inject the command into the file when using
AUTOUPDATE.
Note, one of the reasons I want this is because "bazel test
//toolchain/testing:file_test --test_output=all" has been regularly
exceeding bazel's output limit for me (workaround is either opening the
output file or specifying an obscure output limit flag), making it a
little harder for me to get the commands. However, frequently I'm adding
a file and want to iterate on it, so that's really the use case I have
in mind here.
The purpose of the newline is to make it clearer where a given
diagnostic begins and ends, particularly as the first message of a
diagnostic may not be the error.
This is a trivial code change, but ripples edits through test files.
This undoes parts of #3515 in order to allow PushGlobalInit to be called
when the initializer is called, instead of at the end of the binding
pattern. The current approach is fragile because supported patterns will
become more complex. We also will likely want similar support in `let`,
which puts the initializer first, so this offers a consistent approach
for both.
[Looking
back](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1184237511766179840),
this is more or less the second option in that message, but using the
PeekNextIs to avoid vagueness about what's being popped first.
Note I'm putting in PeekNextIs for what I'm hoping will be a pretty
narrow use-case. I could've added depth arguments to the Peek functions,
but that would've rippled through a number of APIs and it's not clear to
me that this has generic utility. I mean, right now it could just be
PeekNextIsVariableInitializer, since it's only optional in that case.
Richard Smith
czapiga
David BlaikieandJon Ross-Perkins
josh11bandJosh L