This introduces a number of abstractions, whose concepts are not fully
documented yet since I want to see how it evolves in practice first.
This introduces the concept of edge ontology (similar to a schema) using the
type system. Even though we are not able to determine what the graph will
look like statically---since that's determined by data fed to us at
runtime---we _can_ ensure that the code _producing_ the graph from those
data will produce a graph that adheres to its ontology.
Because of the typed `ObjectIndex`, we're also able to implement operations
that are specific to the type of object that we're operating on. Though,
since the type is not (yet?) stored on the edge itself, it is possible to
walk the graph without looking at node weights (the `ObjectContainer`) and
therefore avoid panics for invalid type assumptions, which is bad, but I
don't think that'll happen in practice, since we'll want to be resolving
nodes at some point. But I'll addres that more in the future.
Another thing to note is that walking edges is only done in tests right now,
and so there's no filtering or anything; once there are nodes (if there are
nodes) that allow for different outgoing edge types, we'll almost certainly
want filtering as well, rather than panicing. We'll also want to be able to
query for any object type, but filter only to what's permitted by the
ontology.
DEV-13160
Working with the graph can be confusing with all of the layers
involved. This begins to provide a better layer of abstraction that can
encapsulate the concept and enforce invariants.
Since I'm better able to enforce invariants now, this also removes the span
from the diagnostic message, since the invariant is now always enforced with
certainty. I'm not removing the runtime panic, though; we can revisit that
if future profiling shows that it makes a negative impact.
DEV-13160
This addresses the two outstanding `todo!` match arms representing errors in
lowering expressions into the graph. As noted in the comments, these errors
are unlikely to be hit when using TAME in the traditional way, since
e.g. XIR and NIR are going to catch the equivalent problems within their own
contexts (unbalanced tags and a valid expression grammar respectively).
_But_, the IR does need to stand on its own, and I further hope that some
tooling maybe can interact more directly with AIR in the future.
DEV-13160
This introduces a number of concepts together, again to demonstrate that
they were derived.
This introduces support for nested expressions, extending the previous
work. It also supports error recovery for dangling expressions.
The parser states are a mess; there is a lot of duplicate code here that
needs refactoring, but I wanted to commit this first at a known-good state
so that the diff will demonstrate the need for the change that will
follow; the opportunities for abstraction are plainly visible.
The immutable stack introduced here could be generalized, if needed, in the
future.
Another important note is that Rust optimizes away the `memcpy`s for the
stack that was introduced here. The initial Parser Context was introduced
because of `ArrayVec` inhibiting that elision, but Vec never had that
problem. In the future, I may choose to go back and remove ArrayVec, but I
had wanted to keep memory allocation out of the picture as much as possible
to make the disassembly and call graph easier to reason about and to have
confidence that optimizations were being performed as intended.
With that said---it _should_ be eliding in tamec, since we're not doing
anything meaningful yet with the graph. It does also elide in tameld, but
it's possible that Rust recognizes that those code paths are never taken
because tameld does nothing with expressions. So I'll have to monitor this
as I progress and adjust accordingly; it's possible a future commit will
call BS on everything I just said.
Of course, the counter-point to that is that Rust is optimizing them away
anyway, but Vec _does_ still require allocation; I was hoping to keep such
allocation at the fringes. But another counter-point is that it _still_ is
allocated at the fringe, when the context is initialized for the parser as
part of the lowering pipeline. But I didn't know how that would all come
together back then.
...alright, enough rambling.
DEV-13160
I had wanted to implement expression operations in terms of user-defined
functions (where primitives are just marked as intrinsic), and would still
like to, but I need to get this thing working, so I'll just include a note
for now.
Yes, TAMER's formalisms are inspired by APL, if that hasn't been documented
anywhere yet.
DEV-13160
This commit is purposefully coupled with changes that utilize it to
demonstrate that the need for this abstraction has been _derived_, not
forced; TAMER doesn't aim to be functional for the sake of it, since
idiomatic Rust achieves many of its benefits without the formalisms.
But, the formalisms do occasionally help, and this is one such
example. There is other existing code that can be refactored to take
advantage of this style as well.
I do _not_ wish to pull an existing functional dependency into TAMER; I want
to keep these abstractions light, and eliminate them as necessary, as Rust
continues to integrate new features into its core. I also want to be able
to modify the abstractions to suit our particular needs. (This is _not_ a
general recommendation; it's particular to TAMER and to my experience.)
This implementation of `Functor` is one such example. While it is modeled
after Haskell in that it provides `fmap`, the primitive here is instead
`map`, with `fmap` derived from it, since `map` allows for better use of
Rust idioms. Furthermore, it's polymorphic over _trait_ type parameters,
not method, allowing for separate trait impls for different container types,
which can in turn be inferred by Rust and allow for some very concise
mapping; this is particularly important for TAMER because of the disciplined
use of newtypes.
For example, `foo.overwrite(span)` and `foo.overwrite(name)` are both
self-documenting, and better alternatives than, say, `foo.map_span(|_|
span)` and `foo.map_symbol(|_| name)`; the latter are perfectly clear in
what they do, but lack a layer of abstraction, and are verbose. But the
clarity of the _new_ form does rely on either good naming conventions of
arguments, or explicit type annotations using turbofish notation if
necessary.
This will be implemented on core Rust types as appropriate and as
possible. At the time of writing, we do not yet have trait specialization,
and there's too many soundness issues for me to be comfortable enabling it,
so that limits that we can do with something like, say, a generic `Result`,
while also allowing for specialized implementations based on newtypes.
DEV-13160
Admittedly, there are _my_ debugging conventions. But I'm also the only one
working on this project right now.
I want to keep various things around without cluttering untracked file
output, because finding new files can be annoying in all the output.
Really, with a C background, I should have known that `write` may not write
all bytes, and I'm pretty sure I was aware, so I'm not sure how that slipped
my mind for every call. But it's not a great default, and I do feel like
`write_all` should be the deafult behavior, despite the syscall and C
library name.
It shouldn't take clippy to warn about something so significant.
This uses `ObjectIndex` to automatically narrow the type to what is
expected.
Given that `ObjectIndex` is supposed to mean that there must be an object
with that index, perhaps the next step is to remove the `Option` from `get`
as well.
DEV-13160
This makes the system a bit more ergonomic and introduces additional type
safety by associating the narrowed object type with the
`ObjectIndex` (previously `ObjectRef`). Not only does this allow us to
explicitly state the type of object wherever those indices are stored, but
it also allows the API to automatically narrow to that type when operating
on it again without the caller having to worry about it.
DEV-13160
This begins to place expressions on the graph---something that I've been
thinking about for a couple of years now, so it's interesting to finally be
doing it.
This is going to evolve; I want to get some things committed so that it's
clear how I'm moving forward. The ASG makes things a bit awkward for a
number of reasons:
1. I'm dealing with older code where I had a different model of doing
things;
2. It's mutable, rather than the mostly-functional lowering pipeline;
3. We're dealing with an aggregate ever-evolving blob of data (the graph)
rather than a stream of tokens; and
4. We don't have as many type guarantees.
I've shown with the lowering pipeline that I'm able to take a mutable
reference and convert it into something that's both functional and
performant, where I remove it from its container (an `Option`), create a new
version of it, and place it back. Rust is able to optimize away the memcpys
and such and just directly manipulate the underlying value, which is often a
register with all of the inlining.
_But_ this is a different scenario now. The lowering pipeline has a narrow
context. The graph has to keep hitting memory. So we'll see how this
goes. But it's most important to get this working and measure how it
performs; I'm not trying to prematurely optimize. My attempts right now are
for the way that I wish to develop.
Speaking to #4 above, it also sucks that I'm not able to type the
relationships between nodes on the graph. Rather, it's not that I _can't_,
but a project to created a typed graph library is beyond the scope of this
work and would take far too much time. I'll leave that to a personal,
non-work project. Instead, I'm going to have to narrow the type any time
the graph is accessed. And while that sucks, I'm going to do my best to
encapsulate those details to make it as seamless as possible API-wise. The
performance hit of performing the narrowing I'm hoping will be very small
relative to all the business logic going on (a single cache miss is bound to
be far more expensive than many narrowings which are just integer
comparisons and branching)...but we'll see. Introducing branching sucks,
but branch prediction is pretty damn good in modern CPUs.
DEV-13160
This will be used for expression start and end spans to merge into a span
that represents the entirety of the expression; see future commits for its
use.
Though, this has been generalized further than that to ensure that it makes
sense in any use case, to avoid potential pitfalls.
DEV-13160
This adds a line of padding between the last line of a source marking and
the first line of a footer, making it easier to read. This also matches the
behavior of Rust's error message.
This is something I intended to do previously, but didn't have the
time. Not that I do now, but now that we'll be showing some more robust
diagnostics to users, it ought to look decent.
DEV-13430
This moves the special handling of circular dependencies out of
`poc.rs`---and to be clear, everything needs to be moved out of there---and
into the source of the error. The diagnostic system did not exist at the
time.
This is one example of how easy it will be to create robust diagnostics once
we have the spans on the graph. Once the spans resolve to the proper source
locations rather than the `xmlo` file, it'll Just Work.
It is worth noting, though, that this detection and error will ultimately
need to be moved so that it can occur when performing other operation on the
graph during compilation, such as type inference and unification. I don't
expect to go out of my way to detect cycles, though, since the linker will.
DEV-13430
Previously this just exported the variable into the environment, but I'm not
comfortable with the lack of visibility that provides; I want to be able to
see not only that it's happening, which will help to debug issues, but also
when it's _not_ happening so that I know that it needs to be introduced into
a configuration at a particular installation site.
This ASG implementation is a refactored form of original code from the
proof-of-concept linker, which was well before the span and diagnostic
implementations, and well before I knew for certain how I was going to solve
that problem.
This was quite the pain in the ass, but introduces spans to the AIR tokens
and graph so that we always have useful diagnostic information. With that
said, there are some important things to note:
1. Linker spans will originate from the `xmlo` files until we persist
spans to those object files during `tamec`'s compilation. But it's
better than nothing.
2. Some additional refactoring is still needed for consistency, e.g. use
of `SPair`.
3. This is just a preliminary introduction. More refactoring will come as
tamec is continued.
DEV-13041
The previous commit had the ASG implicitly constructed and then
discarded. This will keep it around, which will be necessary not only for
imports, but for passing the ASG off to the next phases of lowering.
DEV-13429
This does not yet yield the produces ASG, but does set up the lowering
pipeline to prepare to produce it. It's also currently a no-op, with
`NirToAsg` just yielding `Incomplete`.
The goal is to begin to move toward vertical slices for TAMER as I start to
return to the previous approach of a handoff with the old compiler. Now
that I've gained clarity from my previous failed approach (which I
documented in previous commits), I feel that this is the best way forward
that will allow me to incrementally introduce more fine-grained performance
improvements, at the cost of some throwaway work as this progresses. But
the cost of delay with these build times is far greater.
DEV-13429
This finalizes the implementation for interpolation. There is some more
cleanup that can be done, but it is now functioning as intended and
providing errors.
Finally. How deeply exhausting all of this has been.
DEV-13156
This just cleans up these tests a bit before I add to them. What we're left
with follows the structure of most other parser tests and is atm a good
balance between boilerplate and clarity in isolation (a fair level of
abstraction).
Could possibly do better by putting the inner objects in a callback so that
the `Close` can be asserted on commonly as well, but that's a bit awkward
with how the assertion is based on the collection; we'd have to keep the
last item from being collected from the iterator. I'd rather not deal with
such restructuring right now and figuring out a decent pattern. Perhaps in
the future.
DEV-13156
This is the culmination of all the recent work---the third attempt at trying
to integrate this. It ended up much cleaner than what was originally going
to be done, but only after gutting portions of the system and changing my
approach to how NIR is parsed (WRT attributes). See prior commits for more
information.
The final step is to fill the error branches with actual errors rather than
`todo!`s.
What a relief.
DEV-13156
This begins to introduce the new, simplified NIR by creating tokens that
serve as the expansion for interpolation. Admittedly, `Text` may change, as
it doesn't really represent `<text>foo</text>`, and I'd rather that node
change as well, though I'll probably want to maintain some sort of BC.
DEV-13156
This removes quite a bit of work, and work that was difficult to reason
about. While I'm disappointed that that hard work is lost (aside from
digging it up in the commit history), I am happy that it was able to be
removed, because the extra complexity and cognitive burden was significant.
This removes more `memcpy`s than the sum state could have hoped to, since
aggregation is no longer necessary. Given that, there is a slight
performacne improvement. The re-introduction of required and duplicate
checks later on should be more efficient than this was, and so this should
be a net win overall in the end.
DEV-13346
This cleans up the old implementation now that it's no longer used (as of
the previous commit) by `ele_parse!`. It also removes the two error
variants that no longer apply: required attributes and duplicate
attributes.
DEV-13346
This handles the bulk of the integration of the new `attr_parse_stream!` as
a replacement for `attr_parse!`, which moves from aggregate attribute
objects to a stream of attribute-derived tokens. Rationale for this change
is in the preceding commit messages.
The first striking change here is how it affects the test cases: nearly all
`Incomplete`s are removed. Note that the parser has an existing
optimization whereby `Incomplete` with lookahead causes immediate recursion
within `Parser`, since those situations are used only for control flow and
to keep recursion out of `ParseState`s.
Next: this removes types from `nir::parse`'s grammar for attributes. The
types will instead be derived from NIR tokens later in the lowering
pipeline. This simplifies NIR considerably, since adding types into the mix
at this point was taking an already really complex lowering phase and making
it ever more difficult to reason about and get everything working together
the way that I needed.
Because of `attr_parse_stream!`, there are no more required attribute
checks. Those will be handled later in the lowering pipeline, if they're
actually needed in context, with possibly one exception: namespace
declarations. Those are really part of the document and they ought to be
handled _earlier_ in the pipeline; I'll do that at some point. It's not
required for compilation; it's just required to maintain compliance with the
XML spec.
We also lose checks for duplicate attributes. This is also something that
ought to be handled at the document level, and so earlier in the pipeline,
since XML cares, not us---if we get a duplicate attribute that results in an
extra NIR token, then the next parser will error out, since it has to check
for those things anyway.
A bunch of cleanup and simplification is still needed; I want to get the
initial integration committed first. It's a shame I'm getting rid of so
much work, but this is the right approach, and results in a much simpler
system.
DEV-13346
This really does need documentation.
With that said, this changes things up a bit: the value is now derived from
an `SPair` rather than an `Attr`, given that the name is redundant. We do
not need the attribute name span, since the philosophy is that we're
stripping the document and it should no longer be important beyond the
current context.
It does call into question errors, but my intent in the future is to be able
to have the lowering pipline augment errors with its current state---since
we're streaming, then an error that is encountered during lowering of an
element will still have the element parser in the state representing the
parsing of that element; so that information does not need to be propagated
down the pipeline, but can be augmented as it bubbles back up.
More on that at some point in the future; not right now.
DEV-13346
As I talked about in the previous commit, this is going to be the
replacement for the aggreagte `attr_parse!`; the next commit will integrate
it into `ele_parse!` so that I can begin to remove the old one.
It is disappointing, since I did put a bit of work into this and I think the
end result was pretty neat, even if was never fully utilized. But, this
simplifies things significantly; no use in maintaining features that serve
no purpose but to confound people.
DEV-13346
Alright, this has been a rather tortured experience. The previous commit
began to state what is going on.
This is reversing a lot of prior work, with the benefit of
hindsight. Little bit of history, for the people who will probably never
read this, but who knows:
As noted at the top of NIR, I've long wanted a very simple set of general
primitives where all desugaring is done by the template system---TAME is a
metalanguage after all. Therefore, I never intended on having any explicit
desugaring operations.
But I didn't have time to augment the template system to support parsing on
attribute strings (nor am I sure if I want to do such a thing), so it became
clear that interpolation would be a pass in the compiler. Which led me to
the idea of a desugaring pass.
That in turn spiraled into representing the status of whether NIR was
desugared, and separating primitives, etc, which lead to a lot of additional
complexity. The idea was to have a Sugared and Plan NIR, and further within
them have symbols that have latent types---if they require interpolation,
then those types would be deferred until after template expansion.
The obvious problem there is that now:
1. NIR has the complexity of various types; and
2. Types were tightly coupled with NIR and how it was defined in terms of
XML destructuring.
The first attempt at this didn't go well: it was clear that the symbol types
would make mapping from Sugared to Plain NIR very complicated. Further,
since NIR had any number of symbols per Sugared NIR token, interpolation was
a pain in the ass.
So that lead to the idea of interpolating at the _attribute_ level. That
seemed to be going well at first, until I realized that the token stream of
the attribute parser does not match that of the element parser, and so that
general solution fell apart. It wouldn't have been great anyway, since then
interpolation was _also_ coupled to the destructuring of the document.
Another goal of mine has been to decouple TAME from XML. Not because I want
to move away from XML (if I did, I'd want S-expressions, not YAML, but I
don't think the team would go for that). This decoupling would allow the
use of a subset of the syntax of TAME in other places, like CSVMs and YAML
test cases, for example, if appropriate.
This approach makes sense: the grammar of TAME isn't XML, it's _embedded
within_ XML. The XML layer has to be stripped to expose it.
And so that's what NIR is now evolving into---the stripped, bare
repsentation of TAME's language. That also has other benefits too down the
line, like a REPL where you can use any number of syntaxes. I intend for
NIR to be stack-based, which I'd find to be intuitive for manipulating and
querying packages, but it could have any number of grammars, including
Prolog-like for expressing Horn clauses and querying with a
Prolog/Datalog-like syntax. But that's for the future...
The next issue is that of attribute types. If we have a better language for
NIR, then the types can be associated with the NIR tokens, rather than
having to associate each symbol with raw type data, which doesn't make a
whole lot of sense. That also allows for AIR to better infer types and
determine what they ought to be, and further makes checking types after
template application natural, since it's not part of NIR at all. It also
means the template system can naturally apply to any sources.
Now, if we take that final step further, and make attributes streaming
instead of aggregating, we're back to a streaming pipeline where all
aggregation takes place on the ASG (which also resolves the memcpy concerns
worked around previously, also further simplifying `ele_parse` again, though
it sucks that I wasted that time). And, without the symbol types getting
in the way, since now NIR has types more fundamentally associated with
tokens, we're able to interpolate on a token stream using simple SPairs,
like I always hoped (and reverted back to in the previous commit).
Oh, and what about that desugaring pass? There's the issue of how to
represent such a thing in the type system---ideally we'd know statically
that desugaring always lowers into a more primitive NIR that reduces the
mapping that needs to be done to AIR. But that adds complexity, as
mentioned above. The alternative is to just use the templat system, as I
originally wanted to, and resolve shortcomings by augmenting the template
system to be able to handle it. That not only keeps NIR and the compiler
much simpler, but exposes more powerful tools to developers via TAME's
metalanguage, if such a thing is appropriate.
Anyway, this creates a system that's far more intuitive, and far
simpler. It does kick the can to AIR, but that's okay, since it's also
better positioned to deal with it.
Everything I wrote above is a thought dump and has not been proof-read, so
good luck! And lets hope this finally works out...it's actually feeling
good this time. The journey was necessary to discover and justify what came
out of it---everything I'm stripping away was like a cocoon, and within it
is a more beautiful and more elegant TAME.
DEV-13346
Also: Revert "tamer: nir::desugar::interp: Token {SPair=>Attr}"
This reverts commit 7fd60d6cdafaedc19642a3f10dfddfa7c7ae8f53.
This reverts commit 12a008c66414c3d628097e503a98c80687e3c088.
This has been quite a tortured experience, trying to figure out how to best
fit desugaring into the existing system. The truth is that it ultimately
failed because I was not sticking with my intuition---I was trying to get
things out quickly by compromising on the design, and in the end, it saved
me nothing.
But I wouldn't say that it was a waste of time---the path was a dead end,
but it was full of experiences.
More to come, but interpolation is back to operating on NIR directly, and I
chose to treat it as a source-to-source mapping and not represent it using
the type system---interpolation can be an optional feature when writing TAME
frontends (the principal one being the XML-based one), and it's up to later
checks to assert that identifiers match a given domain.
I am disappointed by the additional context we lose here, but that can
always be introduced in the future differently, e.g. by maintaining a
dictionary of additional context for spans that can be later referenced for
diagnostic purposes. But let's worry about that in the future; it doesn't
make sense to further complicate IRs for such a thing.
DEV-13346
Converts to use TAME's diagnostic panics, same as previous commits. Also
introduces impl for `Result`, which I apparently hadn't needed yet.
In the future, I hope trait impl specializations will be available to
automatically derive and expose span information in these diagnostic
messages for certain types.
DEV-13156
This changes the input token from a more generic `SPair` to `Attr`, which
reflects the new target integration point in the `attr_parse!`
parser-generator.
This is a compromise---I'd like for it to remain generic and have stitching
deal with all integration concerns, but I have spent far too much time on
this and need to keep moving.
With that said, we do benefit from knowing where this must fit in---it's
easier to reason about in a more concrete way, and we can take advantage of
the extra information rather than being burdened by its presence and
ignoring it. We need to be able to convert back into `XirfToken` (see a
recent commit that discusses that) for `StitchExpansion`, which is why
`Attr` is here. And since it is, we can use it to explain to the user not
just the interpolation specification used to derive params, but also the
attribute it is associated with. This is what TAME (in XSLT) does today,
IIRC (I wrote it, I just forget exactly). It also means that I can name the
parameters after the attribute.
So, that'll be in a following commit; I was disappointed when my prior
approach with `SPair` didn't give me enough information to be able to do
that, since I think it's important that the system be as descriptive as
possible in how it derives information. Of course, traces would reveal how
the parser came about the derivation, but that requires recompilation in a
special tracing mode.
DEV-13156
Of course I would run into integration issues. My foresight is lacking.
The purpose of this is to allow for type narrowing before passing data to a
more specialized ParseState, so that the other ParseState doesn't need to
concern itself with the entire domain of inputs that it doesn't need, and
repeat unnecessary narrowing.
For example, consider XIRF: it has an `Attr` variant, which holds an `Attr`
object. We'll want to desugar that object. It does not make sense to
require that the desugaring process accept `XirfToken` when we've already
narrowed it to an `Attr`---we should accept an Attr.
However, we run into a problem immediately: what happens with tokens that
bubble back up due to lookahead or errors? Those tokens need to be
converted _back_ (widened). Fortunately, widening is a much easier process
than narrowing---we can simply use `From`, as we do today so many other
places.
So, this still keeps the onus of narrowing on the caller, but for now that
seems most appropriate. I suspect Rust would optimize away duplicate
checks, but that still leaves the maintenance concern---the two narrowings
could get out of sync, and that's not acceptable.
Unfortunately, this is just one of the problems with integration...
DEV-13156
My initial plan with expansion was to wrap a `PasteState` in another that
unwraps `Expansion` and converts into a `Dead` state, so that existing
`TransitionResult` stitching methods (`delegate`, specifically) could be
used.
But the desire to use that existing method was primarily because stitching
was a complex operation that was abstracted away _as part of the `delegate`
method_, which made writing new ones verbose and difficult. Thus began the
previous commits to begin to move that responsibility elsewhere so that it
could be more composable.
This continues with that, introducing a new trait that will culminate in the
removal of a wrapping `ParseState` in favor of a stitching method. The old
`StitchableExpansionState` is still used for tests, which demonstrates that
the boilerplate problem still exists despite improvements made here These
will become more generalized in the future as I have time (and the
functional aspects of the code more formalized too, now that they're taking
shape).
The benefit of this is that we avoid having to warp our abstractions in ways
that don't make sense (use of a dead state transition) just to satisfy
existing APIs. It also means that we do not need the boilerplate of a
`ParseState` any time we want to introduce this type of
stitching/delegation. It also means that those methods can eventually be
extracted into more general traits in the future as well.
Ultimately, though, the two would have accomplished the same thing. But the
difference is most emphasized in the _parent_---the actual stitching still
has to take place for desugaring in the attribute parser, and I'd like for
that abstraction to still be in terms of expansion. But if I utilized
`StitchableExpansionState`, which converted into a dead state, I'd have to
either forego the expansion abstraction---which would make the parser even
more confusing---or I'd have to create _another_ abstraction around the dead
state, which would mean that I stripped one abstraction just to introduce
another one that's essentially the same thing. It didn't feel right, but it
would have worked.
The use of `PhantomData` in `StitchableExpansionState` was also a sign that
something wasn't quite right, in terms of how the abstractions were
integrating with one-another.
And so here we are, as I struggle to wade my way through all of the yak
shavings and make any meaningful progress on this project, while others
continue to suffer due to slow build times.
I'm sorry. Even if the system is improving.
DEV-13156
This is just intended to simplify the job of panicing when something is
expected to be `None`. In my case, `Lookahead`; see upcoming commits.
This is intended to be generalized to more than just `Option`, but I have no
use for it elsewhere yet; I primarily just needed to implement a method on
`Option` so that I could have the ergonomics of the dot notation.
DEV-13156
There's no use in duplicating this in util::expand.
Lookahead tokens are one of the few invariants that I haven't taken the time
of enforcing using the type system, because it'd be quite a bit of work that
I do not have time for, and may not be worth it with changes that may make
the system less ergonomic. Nonetheless, I do hope to address it at some
point in the (possibly-far) future.
If ever you encounter this diagnostic message, ask yourself how stable TAMER
otherwise is and how many other issues like this have been entirely
prevented through compile-time proofs using the type system.
DEV-13156
As in previous commits, this continues to replace panics with
`diagnostic_panic!`, which provides much more useful information both for
debugging and to help the user possibly work around the problem. And lets
the user know that it's not their fault, and it's a TAMER bug that should be
reported.
...am I going to rationalize it in each commit message?
DEV-13156
Mike Gerwitz