Int relational operators #76
Conversation
| => setConstant(Name, implicitCast(V, T)) | ||
| => setConstant(Name, implicitCast(V, T)) | ||
|
|
||
| // rule |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe remove the comment?
| @@ -10,7 +10,11 @@ module RUST-CONSTANTS | |||
|
|
|||
| rule | |||
| (const Name:Identifier : T:Type = V:Value;):ConstantItem:KItem | |||
| => setConstant(Name, implicitCast(V, T)) | |||
| => setConstant(Name, implicitCast(V, T)) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is there a diff for this line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm honestly not sure. I think it may be a change of tabs for spaces, perhaps. Will try to figure it out.
| @@ -23,6 +27,8 @@ module RUST-CONSTANTS | |||
| <constant-value> V </constant-value> | |||
| </constant> | |||
| ... | |||
| </constants> | |||
| </constants> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is there a diff for this line?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had implemented a rule below and added some empty lines before. It seems like leaving a blank line below triggered this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I checked this again, and you may have added spaces at the end of the line.
rust-semantics/rust-common-syntax.md
Outdated
| @@ -257,8 +257,7 @@ https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/extern-crates.html | |||
| | ByteLiteral | ByteStringLiteral | RawByteStringLiteral | |||
| | CStringLiteral | RawCStringLiteral | |||
| | IntegerLiteral | FloatLiteral | |||
| | "true" | "false" | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is there a diff for this line? It should be identical with the empty line in the original file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was meaningless spaces. I've just removed it.
| @@ -257,8 +257,7 @@ https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/items/extern-crates.html | |||
| | ByteLiteral | ByteStringLiteral | RawByteStringLiteral | |||
| | CStringLiteral | RawCStringLiteral | |||
| | IntegerLiteral | FloatLiteral | |||
| | "true" | "false" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure these aren't needed here? Would this grammar still parse a .rs file containing true/false? Even if the file is still parsable (e.g. it may identify true/false as identifiers), why is it a good idea to remove these?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My motivation for removing them was to primarily eliminate parsing ambiguity in the execution module. Having a syntax element named true of type Expression was causing issues on, for instance, the check_eq true in the testing files, as it didn't recognize if this true was an Expression or a Bool.
Keeping Bool as a part of Values is also advantageous for us as we do not need to write new rules for assignments of constants and variables, and also makes it easier for us to reuse the return of the relational operations of MInts.
Finally, please, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that an Expression can also be constituted by a single Value. So having Booleans as a part of Values allows us to have effectively the same syntax of adding true and false to the Expression definition, with the advantage of having the boolean operations implemented in the BOOL module being supported here.
| @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ module RUST-EXPRESSION-INTEGER-LITERALS | |||
| syntax String ::= IntegerLiteralToString(IntegerLiteral) [function, total, hook(STRING.token2string)] | |||
|
|
|||
| rule I:IntegerLiteral => wrapPtrValueOrError(null, parseInteger(I)) | |||
| rule B:Bool:LiteralExpression => wrapPtrValueOrError(null, B:Bool:Value) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This works, but you could also write ptrValue(null, B:Bool:Value) directly.
This pull request implements relational operations for integers in our rust-lite semantics.