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
The previous commit demonstrated the amount of boilerplate necessary for
introducing new `ObjectKind`s; this abstracts away a lot of that
boilerplate, and allows for declarative relationship definition for the
ASG's ontology.
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
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 parser does exactly what it says it does. Its implementation is
simple, but I added a test anyway just to prove that it works, and the test
seems more complicated than the implementation itself, given the types
involved.
DEV-13708
This introduces a `Token` in place of the original tuple for
`TreePreOrderDfs` so that it can be used as input to a parser that will
lower into XIRF.
This requires that various things be describable (using `Display`), which
this also adds. This is an example of where the parsing framework itself
enforces system observability by ensuring that every part of the system can
describe its state.
DEV-13708
The `TreePreOrderDfs` iterator needed to expose additional edge context to
the caller (specifically, the `Span`). This was getting a bit messy, so
this consolodates everything into a new `DynObjectRel`, which also
emphasizes that it is in need of narrowing.
Packing everything up like that also allows us to return more information to
the caller without complicating the API, since the caller does not need to
be concerned with all of those values individually.
Depth is kept separate, since that is a property of the traversal and is not
stored on the graph. (Rather, it _is_ a property of the graph, but it's not
calculated until traversal. But, depth will also vary for a given node
because of cross edges, and so we cannot store any concrete depth on the
graph for a given node. Not even a canonical one, because once we start
doing inlining and common subexpression elimination, there will be shared
edges that are _not_ cross edges (the node is conceptually part of _both_
trees). Okay, enough of this rambling parenthetical.)
DEV-13708
Mike Gerwitz