Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clean up operator representations #134552

Closed
wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor

@nnethercote nnethercote commented Dec 20, 2024

Draft code implementing MCP 831.

r? @ghost

@rustbot rustbot added A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 20, 2024
`AssocOp::AssignOp` contains a `BinOpToken`. `ExprKind::AssignOp`
contains a `BinOpKind`. Given that `AssocOp` is basically a cut-down
version of `ExprKind`, it makes sense to make `AssocOp` more like
`ExprKind`. Especially given that `AssocOp` and `BinOpKind` use semantic
operation names (e.g. `Mul`, `Div`), but `BinOpToken` uses syntactic
names (e.g. `Star`, `Slash`).

This results in more concise code, and removes the need for various
conversions. (Note that the removed functions `hirbinop2assignop` and
`astbinop2assignop` are semantically identical, because `hir::BinOp` is
just a synonum for `ast::BinOp`!)

The only downside to this is that it allows the possibility of some
nonsensical combinations, such as `AssocOp::AssignOp(BinOpKind::Lt)`.
But `ExprKind::AssignOp` already has that problem. The problem can be
fixed for both types in the future with some effort, by introducing an
`AssignOpKind` type.
It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.

The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.

`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.

Overall things are shorter and nicer.
It makes `AssocOp` more similar to `ExprKind` and makes things a little
simpler. And the semantic names make more sense here than the syntactic
names.
To match `ExprKind::Cast`, and because a semantic name makes more sense
here than a syntactic name.
`BinOpToken` is badly named, because it only covers the assignable
binary ops and excludes comparisons and `&&`/`||`. Its use in
`ast::TokenKind` does allow a small amount of code sharing, but it's a
clumsy factoring.

This commit removes `ast::TokenKind::BinOp{,Eq}`, replacing each one
with 10 individual variants. This makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`rustc_lexer::TokenKind`, which has individual variants for all
operators.

Although the number of lines of code increases, the number of chars
decreases due to the frequent use of shorter names like `token::Plus`
instead of `token::BinOp(BinOpToken::Plus)`.
For consistency with `rustc_lexer::TokenKind::Bang`, and because other
`ast::TokenKind` variants generally have syntactic names instead of
semantic names (e.g. `Star` and `DotDot` instead of `Mul` and `Range`).
First, move the `lang_item_for_op` call from the top of
`lookup_op_method`'s body to its callsites. It makes those callsites a
little more verbose, but also means `lookup_op_method` no longer cares
whether it's handling a binop or unop. This lets us remove `Op` and
split `lang_item_for_op` into `lang_item_for_{bin,un}op`, which is a
little simpler.

This change is a prerequisite for adding the `ast::AssignOpKind` type in
a subsequent commit.
Because it's nice to avoid passing in unnecessary data.
In the AST, currently we use `BinOpKind` within `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`, even though this allows some nonsensical
combinations. E.g. there is no `&&=` operator. Likewise for HIR and
THIR.

This commit introduces `AssignOpKind` which only includes the ten
assignable operators, and uses it in `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`. (And does similar things for `hir::ExprKind` and
`thir::ExprKind`.) This avoids the possibility of nonsensical
combinations, as seen by the removal of the `bug!` case in
`lang_item_for_binop`.

The commit is mostly plumbing, including:
- Adds an `impl From<AssignOpKind> for BinOpKind` (AST) and `impl
  From<AssignOp> for BinOp` (MIR/THIR).
- `BinOpCategory` can now be created from both `BinOpKind` and
  `AssignOpKind`.
- Replaces the `IsAssign` type with `Op`, which has more information and
  a few methods.
- `suggest_swapping_lhs_and_rhs`: moves the condition to the call site,
  it's easier that way.
- `check_expr_inner`: had to factor out some code into a separate
  method.

I'm on the fence about whether avoiding the nonsensical combinations is
worth the extra code.
@nnethercote nnethercote changed the title Tweak AssocOp Clean up operator representations Jan 28, 2025
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jan 29, 2025

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #136209) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@nnethercote
Copy link
Contributor Author

This has been superseded by #136846, #137902, and #138017.

@nnethercote nnethercote closed this Mar 4, 2025
@nnethercote nnethercote deleted the tweak-AssocOp branch March 4, 2025 22:18
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-meta Area: Issues & PRs about the rust-lang/rust repository itself S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-rustdoc Relevant to the rustdoc team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants