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 has been a long time coming. The wiring of it all together is a little
rough around the edges right now, but this commit represents a working POC
to begin to fill in the gaps for the entire lowering pipeline.
I had hoped to be at this point a year ago. Yeah.
This marks a significant milestone in the project because this allows me to
begin to observe the implementation end-to-end, testing it on real-life
inputs as part of a production build pipeline.
...and now, with that, we can begin. So much work has gone into this
project so far, but aside from the linker (which has been in production for
years), most of this work has been foundational. It's been a significant
investment that I intend to have pay off in many different ways.
(All this outputs right now is `<package/>`.)
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
This information is necessary to be able to reconstruct the tree, since
the `ObjectIndex` alone does not give you enough information. Even if you
inspected the graph, it _still_ wouldn't give you enough information, since
you don't know the current path of the traversal for nodes that may have
multiple incoming edges. (Any assumptions you could make today won't
always be valid in the future.)
DEV-13708
This begins to introduce a graph traversal useful for a source
reconstruction from the current state of the ASG. The idea is to, after
having parsed and ingested the source through the lowering pipeline, to
re-output it to (a) prove that we have parsed correctly and (b) allow
progressively moving things from the XSLT-based compiler into TAMER.
There's quite a bit of documentation here; see that for more
information. Generalizing this in an appropriate way took some time, but I
think this makes sense (that work began with the introduction of cross edges
in terms of the tree described by the graph's ontology). But I do need to
come up with an illustration to include in the documentation.
DEV-13708
Mike Gerwitz