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>
While the Parser has similar divergent states, lists of Expressions tend to be handled more like this. I'm keeping the divergent start state in order to continue support of a distinct error, but I think this organization of FunctionParameter/FunctionParameterFinish will be less surprising.
Adds remaining expression support, and switches the default to Parser2.
Note, this doesn't delete the current Parser yet. I'll just do that in its own PR.
Adds `while` and most of the expression support. Splits apart the fixity test to demonstrate more closely which bits are still failing.
```
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/fail_paren_match_regression.carbon.test FAILED in 0.8s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/function_call.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/package.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/structs.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/tuples.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/var.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_colon_instead_of_in.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_missing_in.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_missing_var.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/nested.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/simple.carbon.test FAILED in 0.8s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:function/definition/with_params.carbon.test FAILED in 0.8s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fixity_in_call.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fixity_in_var.carbon.test FAILED in 0.8s
```
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@gmail.com>
Also does `if` support, discussed refactorings, like PopState/PushState instead of edits.
With these changes, I'm to where I can start talking about what's still missing:
```
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/fail_invalid_designators.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/fail_paren_match_regression.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/function_call.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/package.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/structs.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/tuples.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:basics/var.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_colon_instead_of_in.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_missing_in.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/fail_missing_var.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/nested.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:for/simple.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:function/definition/with_params.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/associative.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fail_missing_precedence_and_or.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fail_missing_precedence_or_and.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fail_variety.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/fixity.carbon.test FAILED in 0.9s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/missing_precedence_not.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/postfix_unary.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:operators/prefix_unary.carbon.test FAILED in 0.7s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:while/basic.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
//toolchain/parser/testdata:while/fail_unbraced.carbon.test FAILED in 0.6s
```
This does modify a couple `if` tests to not test so much expression syntax -- that just seems like unrelated syntax.
The intent of this approach is to eliminate recursion limits as a barrier for the parser. While it may not be urgent to address, I want to avoid pouring effort into a parser approach that we don't think will be usable long-term.
Right now this is passing a minor set of tests. It's intended to be enough to show how I'm thinking about flow control for the parser. I'm manually switching back and forth because it seemed like the easiest approach that avoids duplicating tests.
Jon Ross-PerkinsandChandler Carruth
Kareem Ergawyandergawy