Structs in PIL #1516
Structs in PIL #1516
Conversation
ast/src/parsed/display.rs
Outdated
| indent( | ||
| self.fields | ||
| .iter() | ||
| .map(|v| format!("{}: {},\n", v.0, v.1)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| .map(|v| format!("{}: {},\n", v.0, v.1)) | |
| .map(|(name, ty)| format!("{name}: {ty},\n")) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Didn't we want to re-use some struct from the trait definition here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TraitFunction would be the ideal option, so I think we should rename them: #1816
ast/src/analyzed/mod.rs
Outdated
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Serialize, Deserialize, JsonSchema)] | ||
| pub enum TypeConstructor { | ||
| Enum(Arc<EnumDeclaration>, EnumVariant), | ||
| Struct(Arc<StructDeclaration>, (String, Type)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A type constructor for struct and a struct expression are the same thing. Is this the case here or do you make a distinction? I have the impression that we don't need struct type constructors but I might be wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I used it mainly in the Statement processor when processing the Struct declaration. TypeDeclaration declares the new type of the struct and TypeConstructor, constructed the types of the internal functions (similar to enums wth variants), using the type declarations of each one of the functions inside the declaration.
For example: struct Dot { x: int, y: int }
would give us a TypeDeclaration Dot and two TypeConstructor Dot::x and Dot::y.
On the other hand, the Struct expression is used at the time of instantiation, for example let f: int -> Dot = |i| Dot{a: 0, b: i};
is this wrong?
It makes sense that Dot::y doesn't actually declare any new type (it is more of a renaming of the internal int type), but my biggest question here is: somehow I have to process the internal types so that they are available later, but if they are not TypeConstructor, what should they be?
Wait, I just realized that there are some things that don't make sense. I was still mixing up some ideas when I started this PR. I'll let you know when it's ready.
This PR implements structs based on the issue #1016.
To avoid ambiguity with the grammar, for creating an instance of a struct and for accessing its fields, a temporary variation of the grammar is used which should be discussed.Currently, an instance of structX {x: int, y: int}is created usingX with {x: 1, y:0}.