High level, replacing `Id::Invalid` with `Id::None` and `Id::is_valid`
with `Id::has_value` for clarity, as discussed
[here](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1331664574545395794).
The `IntId` refactoring is needed together with `AnyIdBase` because it's
also used with `ValueStore`.
Note, trying to be careful not to rewrite `EnumBase::InvalidIndex`, or
`is_valid` in general (e.g., `IdKind::is_valid`).
I've tried to sequence commits here:
1. Automatic replacements:
- `((?:Id|Index)(?: |::|\(|Base(?:\(|::)))Invalid((?:Index)?\W)` ->
`$1None$2`
- `<invalid>` -> `<none>`
- `InvalidNodeId` -> `NoneNodeId`
- `/\*invalid\*/` -> `/*none*/`
- `id((?:_|\(\))(?:\.|->))is_valid` -> `id$1has_value`
2. Manual edits:
- In `int.h` and `int_test.cpp`
- `IntT` has `is_value`, which I'm renaming to `is_embedded_value`.
- Manual edits to comments in this file.
- `AnyIdBase` and `IdBase`
- Declaration of `is_valid` -> `has_value`, `InvalidIndex` ->
`NoneIndex`.
- In `ids.h` and `ids.cpp`
- `is_valid` -> `has_value`
- `// An explicitly invalid ID.` -> `// An ID with no value.`; similar
for index
- Various math on `InvalidIndex` -> `NoneIndex`
- Various mentions of "valid" in comments
- In `value_store.h`, for `IdT::Invalid`, plus one comment
- In `impl.h` and `tokenized_buffer.h`, we had different initialization
of `::None` values (versus `ids.h` syntax) that I fixed manually.
- Spot checks to compile
- Particularly where `is_valid` replacements didn't catch spots due to
different naming.
3. Autoupdate tests
4. verbose.carbon (NOAUTOUPDATE)
5. Comment spot checks
Note there are probably other mentions of "Invalid" that should be swept
up, but I'd like to argue for merging and separating out remaining
cleanup since this is so sweeping (and likely to hit merge conflicts
from churn). We'll probably have lingering mentions of "invalid" for a
bit regardless, just because there are uses of "invalid" in non-Id APIs.
I'm looking at adding more significant logic to checking, particularly
for interop. But check.cpp is getting large, and I think just adding
more logic will make it harder to reason about, so I'm looking at
splitting it up. This moves out NodeIdTraversal and
DeferredDefinitionWorklist because they're already independent from the
other code, and are reasonably sized to have their own files.
Thomas Köppe
Boaz Brickner
Jon Ross-Perkins