This introduces `<match on="foo" />` and `<match on="foo" value="bar" />`,
which are both equality predicates. Other types of predicates are not yet
supported.
This change is a bit messy and leaves a bit to be desired. `NirToAir` is
quite messy and needs some cleanup. There's also the issue of introducing
XML-specific errors in NIR so that users know what things like "subject"
mean, but not being able to do so yet because NIR is agnostic to the source
document type; another layer of abstraction is needed.
But, my priority is first to get derivation of a particularly
expensive (generated) package in our internal systems working first.
DEV-13708
This recognizes template application within expressions. Since expressions
can occur within templates, this can occur arbitrarily deeply.
And with that, we have the core of the template system represented on the
graph. Of course, there are some glaring scoping issues to be resolved, but
those aren't unique to template application.
DEV-13708
I had hoped this would be considerably easier to implement, but there are
some confounding factors.
First of all: this accomplishes the initial task of getting nested template
applications and definitions re-output in the `xmli` file. But to do so
successfully, some assumptions had to be made.
The primary issue is that of scope. The old (XSLT-based) TAME relied on the
output JS to handle lexical scope for it at runtime in most situations. In
the case of the template system, when scoping/shadowing were needed, complex
and buggy XPaths were used to make a best effort. The equivalent here would
be a graph traversal, which is not ideal.
I had begun going down the rabbit hole of formalizing lexical scope for
TAMER with environments, but I want to get this committed and working first;
I've been holding onto this and breaking off changes for some time now.
DEV-13708
This applies to template application only; there's still some work to do for
template parameters in definitions (well, for deriving them in `xmli` at
least). And, as you can see, there's still a lot of TODO items here.
I ended up backtracking on tree edges to Meta, and even on cross edges to
Meta, because it complicated xmli derivation with no benefit right now;
maybe a cross edge will be re-added in the future, but I need to move on and
see where this takes me.
But, it works.
DEV-13708
This this a big change that's difficult to break up, and I don't have the
energy after it.
This introduces nullary template application, short- and long-form. Note
that a body of the short form is a `@values@` argument, so that's not
supported yet.
This continues to formalize the idea of what "template application" and
"template expansion" mean in TAMER. It makes a separate `TplApply`
unnecessary, because now application is simply a reference to a
template. Expansion and application are one and the same: when a template
expands, it'll re-bind metavariables to the parent context. So in a
template context, this amounts to application.
But applying a closed template will have nothing to bind, and so is
equivalent to expansion. And since `Meta` objects are not valid outside of
a `Tpl` context, applying a non-closed template outside of another template
will be invalid.
So we get all of this with a single primitive (getting the "value" of a
template).
The expansion is conceptually like `,@` in Lisp, where we're splicing trees.
It's a mess in some spots, but I want to get this committed before I do a
little bit of cleanup.
Also known as metavariables or template parameters.
This is a bit of a tortured excursion, trying to figure out how I want to
best represent this. I have a number of pages of hand-written notes that
I'd like to distill over time, but the rendered graph ontology (via
`asg-ontviz`) demonstrates the broad idea.
`AirTpl::TplApply` highlights some remaining questions. What I had _wanted_
to do is to separate the concepts of application and expansion, and support
partial application and such. But it's going to be too much work for now,
when it isn't needed---partial application can be worked around by simply
creating new templates and duplicating params, as we do today, although that
sucks and is a maintenance issue. But I'd rather address that head-on in
the future.
So it's looking like Option B is going to be the approach for now, with
templates being closed (as in, no free metavariables) and expanded at the
same time. This simplifies the parser and error conditions significantly
and makes it easier to utilize anonymous templates, since it'll still be the
active context.
My intent is to get at least the graph construction sorted out---not the
actual expansion and binding yet---enough that I can use templates to
represent parts of NIR that do not have proper graph representations or
desugaring yet, so that I can spit them back out again in the `xmli` file
and incrementally handle them. That was an option I had considered some
months ago, but didn't want to entertain it at the time because I wasn't
sure what doing so would look like; while it was an attractive approach
since it pushes existing primitives into the template system (something I've
wanted to do for years), I didn't want to potentially tank performance or
compromise the design for it after I had spent so much effort on all of this
so far.
But my efforts have yielded a system that significantly exceeds my initial
performance expectations, with a decent abstractions, and so this seems
viable.
DEV-13708
Small break from templates for something easier. I have COVID-19, so I'll
use that as my excuse for wanting to be more lazy.
The real reason is to see some more concrete progress and ensure that
patterns hold for simple expressions before further refactoring.
But, before I proceed with such refactoring, I really ought to approach
something that requires a NIR desugaring step, like case statements.
DEV-13708
The intent was to have a very simple implementation of `hold_dangling` and
have everything work. But, I had a nasty surprise when the system tests
caught bug caused by some interesting depth interactions as it relates to
`xmli` and auto-closing.
I added an extra test/example in `asg::graph::visit::test` to illustrate the
situation; it was difficult to derive from the traces, but trivially obvious
once I wrote it out as an example.
With that, templates can now aggregate tokens for dangling expressions.
DEV-13708
This sets the stage for template parsing, and finally decides how we're
going to represent templates on the ASG. This is going to start simple,
since my original plans for improving how templates are
handled (conceptually) is going to have to wait.
This is the last difficult object type to figure out, with respect to graph
representation and derivation, so I wanted to get it out of the way.
DEV-13708
There's quite a bit of boilerplate here that'll eventually need factoring
out. But it's also clear that it is somewhat onerous to add new object
types.
Note that a good chunk of this burden is _intentional_, via exhaustiveness
checks---adding a new type of object is an exceptional occurrence (well, in
principle, but we haven't added them all yet, so it'll be more common
initially), and we'd rather be safe to ensure that everything is properly
considering how that new type of object interacts with it.
Let's not confuse coupling with safety---the latter causes a burden because
of the former, not because of itself; it provides a service to us.
But, nonetheless, we'll want to reduce this burden somewhat since there are
a number more to add.
DEV-13708
Just as `rate` is a `sum`, `classify` is an `all` by default. The `@any`
attribute will change that interpretation, though I only intend to recognize
that in parsing later on, not emit that in XMLI.
DEV-13708
The element only, no attributes yet.
I'll keep forming boilerplate until abstraction points become obvious with
more variety; this is still pretty close to what was already supported.
DEV-13708
We already had `TreeContext`, and I'm passing the same arguments around, so
this uses it to lift arguments out of these functions, like partial
application.
DEV-13708
This tidies this method up into a decent state that I'm fairly content
with. This goes to emphasize my dislike of returns, which muddies control
flow and makes the code more difficult to read at a glance, which increase
the likelihood of logic bugs.
`match` statements in tail position, on the other hand, are very clear, and
less cognitively burdensome since you can see each individual code path at a
glance.
DEV-13708
This begins to develop a pattern for doing these transformations. I had
tried a number of things using iterators, but I wasn't satisfied with either
how they were turning out; had to fight too much with the type system; or
had to resort to heap allocations. Sticking with an explicit
`push`/`push_all` for now works just fine.
Almost done cleaning up `AsgTreeToXirf::parse_token`, and then I can move on
to introducing more objects.
DEV-13708
This is generic over the source, just as the target, defaulting just the
same to `ObjectIndex`.
This allows us to use only the edge information provided rather than having
to perform another lookup on the graph and then assert that we found the
correct edge. In this case, we're dealing with an `Ident->Expr` edge, of
which there is only one, but in other cases, there may be many such edges,
and it wouldn't be possible to know _which_ was referred to without also
keeping context of the previous edge in the walk.
So, in addition to avoiding more indirection and being more immune to logic
bugs, this also allows us to avoid states in `AsgTreeToXirf` for the purpose
of tracking previous edges in the current path. And it means that the tree
walk can seed further traversals in conjunction with it, if that is so
needed for deriving sources.
More cleanup will be needed, but this does well to set us up for moving
forward; I was too uncomfortable with having to do the separate
lookup. This is also a more intuitive API.
But it does have the awkward effect that now I don't need the pair---I just
need the `Object`---but I'm not going to remove it because I suspect I may
need it in the future. We'll see.
The TODO references the fact that I'm using a convenient `resolve_oi_pairs`
instead of resolving only the target first and then the source only in the
code path that needs it. I'll want to verify that Rust will properly
optimize to avoid the source resolution in branches that do not need it.
DEV-13708
This makes the inner `Object` type generic (but defaulting to the same inner
types as before) so that it can be used as a sum type for various types
where `ObjectKind`-based narrowing is required.
In this case, it's used to narrow `ObjectIndex` alongside the inner
`ObjectKind` so that the two are definitely in sync. This not only results
in cleaner code and a more intuitive API that's approachable to people
less familiar with the system, but it also helps to eliminate logic bugs
that might result form manually narrowing (as was done before this change).
DEV-13708
This was a fairly simple addition, since rate blocks already lower into sum
expressions; these are just non-identified.
This does emphasize that the nir::parse `ele_parse!` abstraction I spent so
much time on ended up not being a perfect fit, as it now has some
boilerplate after it was stripped of much of its capabilities some time ago.
Don't worry, `nir::air` and `asg::graph::xmli` will get cleaned up.
DEV-13708
Mike Gerwitz