Following up on discussion from #3948, doing a general rename of
"enclosing scope" to "parent scope" (and "enclosing scopes" to "ancestor
scopes"). The intent is to improve understandability and collide less
with C++ terminology for "enclosing scope". Note this changes most uses
of "enclosing", but leaves behind a few like "enclosing function" and
"enclosing block".
Note this does create some "parent class" mentions for "adapt" and "var"
(the class they're within), which is maybe unfortunate, but we'd
probably say "base class" if we meant inheritance so perhaps that's
okay. Along the same lines, these are the only `parent_class` uses I see
now, and we do have a few `base_class`.
Use a level comparison during substitution to determine whether we're
substituting a particular binding. Evaluate symbolic bindings with the
same name and the same level to the same symbolic constant, for example
across redeclarations of a generic function.
In parse, form a list of methods that are defined inline, tracking where
they start, where they end, and which other inline methods are nested
within them.
In check, when we reach an inline method body, skip it and add it to a
worklist to be processed later. We also track when we reach the start
and end of a context in which inline method bodies are deferred, so that
we know when to replay the bodies.
When suspending a function definition to be processed later, the
`DeclNameStack` entry is moved to separate storage, including popping
the corresponding scopes from the scope stack and removing the
corresponding lexical names from lexical lookup. Later, when we return
to the function and parse its definition, the `DeclNameStack` entry is
restored. The same is done when we reach the end of a nested context
that can have inline methods, so that we can reenter the nested scope
before processing its members.
---------
Co-authored-by: Jon Ross-Perkins <jperkins@google.com>
Jon Ross-Perkins
Richard Smith