- 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.
This works on multiple statements to make them better for the bracketing model. Stub nodes are added in more cases of invalid syntax, simply so that the semantics has reliably structured input. Comments in parse_node_kind.def now try to show the expected parse tree structure in postorder form.
This labels If, While, and For a little differently in parse nodes so that at the start of the postorder traversal, it'll already be available to semantics which structure is being processed. I need to do a little more with If in particular, but this felt like a reasonable stopping point.
While this makes significant parser changes, the changes to parser_state.def are minimal, mostly naming-related. The actual flow isn't substantively changed, just a couple minor names and the new As(If|While) state which allows distinguishing IfCondition and WhileCondition.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
First change towards re-implementing interfaces using the new parser. I kept it small to make sure we are on the same page regarding stack states and how the parse tree should look like.
Co-authored-by: ergawy <kareem.ergawy@guardsquare.com>
This switches the Verify method to walk postorder so that we can see how much subtree_size is really used, and shift towards removing it. It also starts calling Verify.
Also, I think I'd lost the reserve/size check during Parser refactoring, so I'm putting that back in as part of Verify.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
This is necessary in order to use a bracketing approach; parsing doesn't know the contained format until it parses the first element, which we don't want to do look-ahead for. I think the bracketing is higher value than knowing the format before adding the 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.
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.
Summary:
Adds parsing support for the `package` directive as specified by the
`Code and name organization` design doc.
Co-authored-by: ergawy <kareem.ergawy@guardsquare.com>
This supports both struct type literals, `{.x: i32, .y: i32}`, and struct
value literals, `{.x = 3, .y = 4}`. The degenerate case of `{}` is
treated as a struct value literal, with the expectation that an empty
struct value has the same type/value duality as an empty tuple value.
For now, we permit non-empty tuples to have trailing commas, and require
a trailing comma if there's exactly one list element. The exact rule
here has not yet been decided.
Factor out code for pattern parsing, that only recognizes this form for
now, and uniformly form a 'PatternBinding' parse node for this, for
both variables and patterns.
This should clean up our top level directory and the build patterns.
No non-mechanical edits here. Just injecting `toolchain/` and
`TOOLCHAIN_` and then running formatting tools.
Jon Ross-Perkins
Kareem Ergawyandergawy
Richard Smith