Files
carbon-lang/toolchain/semantics
Jon Ross-Perkins a23f15e901 Refactoring Semantics towards a more instruction-like model (#1349)
This is how I'm interpreting discussion:

- Basic elements are getting set to an ID.
- SetName exists to assign a name (which can then be referred to later with an identifier expression) to an ID.
- Expressions are broken down into a series of operations which operate on IDs.

So with something like the last test:

```
fn Main() { return 12 + 34; }
```

This becomes:

```
Function(%0,
  {IntegerLiteral(%3, 12),
   IntegerLiteral(%2, 34),
   BinaryOperator(%1, +, %3, %2),
   Return(%1),
  })
SetName(`Main`, %0)
```

Note I'm treating blocks as fairly equal to the top of a file now, and basically eliminating boundaries between things. That's because we have discussed also supporting code like:

```
fn Foo() {
  fn Bar() {}
  Bar();
}
```

Here a declaration of a function is occurring inside a code block, so it felt like eliminating the difference was the best choice.

I know you'd commented on the separation of nodes to individual files before; I still think we're going to have a lot of different types of nodes, and so separating them out into individual files makes them easier to browse.
2022-07-06 11:08:47 -07:00
..
2022-06-15 12:40:07 -07:00
2022-06-15 12:40:07 -07:00
2022-06-15 12:40:07 -07:00