Deconstruction assignment: basic implementation

docs/features/deconstruction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,180 @@
+
+Deconstruction
+--------------
+
+This design doc will cover two kinds of deconstruction: deconstruction into existing variables (deconstruction-assignment) and deconstruction into new variables (deconstruction-declaration).
+It is still very much work-in-progress.
+
+Here is an example of deconstruction-assignment:
+```C#
+class C
+{
+    static void Main()
+    {
+        long x;
+        string y;
+
+        (x, y) = new C();
+        System.Console.WriteLine(x + "" "" + y);
+    }
+
+    public void Deconstruct(out int a, out string b)
+    {
+        a = 1;
+        b = ""hello"";
+    }
+}
+```
+
+Treat deconstruction of a tuple into existing variables as a kind of assignment, using the existing AssignmentExpression.
+
+
+###Deconstruction-assignment (deconstruction into into existing variables):
+This doesn't introduce any changes to the language grammar. We have an `assignment-expression` (also simply called `assignment` in the C# grammar) where the `unary-expression` (the left-hand-side) is a `tuple-literal`.
+In short, what this does is find a `Deconstruct` method on the expression on the right-hand-side of the assignment, invoke it, collect its `out` parameters and assign them to the variables on the left-hand-side.
+
+The existing assignment binding currently checks if the variable on its left-hand-side can be assigned to and if the two sides are compatible.
+It will be updated to support deconstruction-assignment, ie. when the left-hand-side is a tuple-literal/tuple-expression:
+
+- Each item on the left needs to be assignable and needs to be compatible with corresponding position on the right
+- Needs to handle nesting case such as `(x, (y, z)) = M();`, but note that the second item in the top-level group has no discernable type.
+
+The lowering for deconstruction-assignment would translate: `(expressionX, expressionY, expressionZ) = (expressionA, expressionB, expressionC)` into:
+
+```
+tempX = &evaluate expressionX
+tempY = &evaluate expressionY
+tempZ = &evaluate expressionZ
+
+tempRight = evaluate right and evaluate Deconstruct
+
+tempX = tempRight.A (including conversions)
+tempY = tempRight.B (including conversions)
+tempZ = tempRight.C (including conversions)
+
+“return/continue” with newTupleIncludingNames tempRight (so you can do get Item1 from the assignment)?
+```
+
+The evaluation order for nesting `(x, (y, z))` is:
+```
+tempX = &evaluate expressionX
+
+tempRight = evaluate right and evaluate Deconstruct
+
+tempX = tempRight.A (including conversions)
+tempLNested = tempRight.B (no conversions)
+
+tempY = &evaluate expressionY
+tempZ = &evaluate expressionZ
+
+tempRNest = evaluate Deconstruct on tempRight
+
+tempY = tempRNest.B (including conversions)
+tempZ = tempRNest.C (including conversions)
+
+```
+
+The evaluation order for the simplest cases (locals, fields, array indexers, or anything returning ref) without needing conversion:
+```
+evaluate side-effect on the left-hand-side variables
+evaluate Deconstruct passing the references directly in
+```
+
+Note that the feature is built around the `Deconstruct` mechanism for deconstructing types.
+`ValueTuple` and `System.Tuple` will rely on that same mechanism, except that the compiler may need to synthesize the proper `Deconstruct` methods.
+
+
+**Work items, open issues and assumptions to confirm with LDM:**
+
+- I assume this should work even if `System.ValueTuple` is not present.
+- How is the Deconstruct method resolved?
+    - I assumed there can be no ambiguity. Only one `Deconstruct` is allowed (in nesting cases we have no type to guide the resolution process).
+    - But we may allow a little bit of ambiguity and preferring an instance over extension method.
+- Do the names matter? `int x, y; (a: x, b: y) = M();`
+- Can we deconstruct into a single out variable? I assume no.
+- I assume no compound assignment `(x, y) += M();`
+- [ ] Provide more details on the semantic of deconstruction-assignment, both static (The LHS of the an assignment-expression used be a L-value, but now it can be L-value -- which uses existing rules -- or tuple_literal. The new rules for tuple_literal on the LHS...) and dynamic.
+- [ ] Discuss with Aleksey about "Deconstruct and flow analysis for nullable ref type"
+- [ ] Validate any target typing or type inference scenarios.
+- The deconstruction-assignment is treated separately from deconstruction-declaration, which means it doesn't allow combinations such as `int x; (x, int y) = M();`.
+
+###Deconstruction-declaration (deconstruction into new variables):
+
+```ANTLR
+declaration_statement
+    : local_variable_declaration ';'
+    | local_constant_declaration ';'
+    | local_variable_combo_declaration ';'  // new
+    ;
+
+local_variable_combo_declaration
+    : local_variable_combo_declaration_lhs '=' expression
+
+local_variable_combo_declaration_lhs
+    : 'var' '(' identifier_list ')'
+    | '(' local_variable_list ')'
+    ;
+
+identifier_list
+    : identifier ',' identifier
+    | identifier_list ',' identifier
+    ;
+
+local_variable_list
+    : local_variable_type identifier ',' local_variable_type identifier
+    | local_variable_list ',' local_variable_type identifier
+    ;
+
+foreach_statement
+    : 'foreach' '(' local_variable_type identifier 'in' expression ')' embedded_statement
+    | 'foreach' '(' local_variable_combo_declaration_lhs 'in' expression ')' embedded_statement // new
+    ;
+
+for_initializer
+    : local_variable_declaration
+    | local_variable_combo_declaration // new
+    | statement_expression_list
+    ;
+
+let_clause
+    : 'let' identifier '=' expression
+    | 'let' '(' identifier_list ')' '=' expression // new
+    ;
+
+from_clause // not sure
+    : 'from' type? identifier 'in' expression
+    ;
+
+join_clause // not sure
+    : 'join' type? identifier 'in' expression 'on' expression 'equals' expression
+    ;
+
+join_into_clause // not sure
+    : 'join' type? identifier 'in' expression 'on' expression 'equals' expression 'into' identifier
+    ;
+
+constant_declarator // not sure
+    : identifier '=' constant_expression
+    ;
+```
+
+Treat deconstruction of a tuple into new variables as a new kind of node (AssignmentExpression).
+It would pick up the behavior of each contexts where new variables can be declared (TODO: need to list). For instance, in LINQ, new variables go into a transparent identifiers.
+It is seen as deconstructing into separate variables (we don't introduce transparent identifiers in contexts where they didn't exist previously).
+
+Should we allow this?
+`var t = (x: 1, y: 2);    (x: var a, y: var b) = t;`
+or `var (x: a, y: b) = t;`
+(if not, tuple names aren't very useful?)
+
+- [ ] Add example: var (x, y) =
+- [ ] Semantic (cardinality should match, ordering including conversion,
+- [ ] What are the type rules? `(string s, int x) = (null, 3);`
+
+- Deconstruction for `System.ValueTuple`, `System.Tuple` and any other type involves a call to `Deconstruct`.
+
+**References**
+
+[C# Design Notes for Apr 12-22, 2016](https://github.com/dotnet/roslyn/issues/11031)
+
+

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/Binder/Binder_Statements.cs

@@ -1698,18 +1698,127 @@ private static bool CheckNotNamespaceOrType(BoundExpression expr, DiagnosticBag
             }
         }
 
-        private BoundAssignmentOperator BindAssignment(AssignmentExpressionSyntax node, DiagnosticBag diagnostics)
+        private BoundExpression BindAssignment(AssignmentExpressionSyntax node, DiagnosticBag diagnostics)
         {
             Debug.Assert(node != null);
             Debug.Assert(node.Left != null);
             Debug.Assert(node.Right != null);
 
+            if (node.Left.Kind() == SyntaxKind.TupleExpression)
+            {
+                return BindDeconstructionAssignment(node, diagnostics);
+            }
+
             var op1 = BindValue(node.Left, diagnostics, BindValueKind.Assignment); // , BIND_MEMBERSET);
             var op2 = BindValue(node.Right, diagnostics, BindValueKind.RValue); // , BIND_RVALUEREQUIRED);
 
             return BindAssignment(node, op1, op2, diagnostics);
         }
 
+        private BoundExpression BindDeconstructionAssignment(AssignmentExpressionSyntax node, DiagnosticBag diagnostics)
+        {
+            SeparatedSyntaxList<ArgumentSyntax> arguments = ((TupleExpressionSyntax)node.Left).Arguments;
+
+            // receiver for Deconstruct
+            var boundRHS = BindValue(node.Right, diagnostics, BindValueKind.RValue);
+
+            int numElements = arguments.Count;
+            Debug.Assert(numElements >= 2); // this should not have parsed as a tuple.
+
+            // bind the variables and check they can be assigned to
+            var checkedVariablesBuilder = ArrayBuilder<BoundExpression>.GetInstance(numElements);
+            for (int i = 0; i < numElements; i++)
+            {
+                var boundVariable = BindExpression(arguments[i].Expression, diagnostics, invoked: false, indexed: false);
+                var checkedVariable = CheckValue(boundVariable, BindValueKind.Assignment, diagnostics);
+
+                checkedVariablesBuilder.Add(checkedVariable);
+            }
+
+            var checkedVariables = checkedVariablesBuilder.ToImmutableAndFree();
+
+            // symbol and parameters for Deconstruct
+            MethodSymbol deconstructMethod = FindDeconstruct(checkedVariables, boundRHS, node, diagnostics);
+            if ((object)deconstructMethod == null)
+            {
+                return new BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator(node, checkedVariables, boundRHS, ErrorMethodSymbol.UnknownMethod,
+                                                                ImmutableArray<BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator.AssignmentInfo>.Empty,
+                                                                ErrorTypeSymbol.UnknownResultType,
+                                                                hasErrors: true);
+            }
+
+            var parameterTypes = deconstructMethod.Parameters.SelectAsArray(p => p.Type);
+
+            // figure out the pairwise conversions
+            var assignmentsBuilder = ArrayBuilder<BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator.AssignmentInfo>.GetInstance(numElements);
+            for (int i = 0; i < checkedVariables.Length; i++)
+            {
+                var leftPlaceholder = new BoundLValuePlaceholder(checkedVariables[i].Syntax, checkedVariables[i].Type) { WasCompilerGenerated = true };
+                var rightPlaceholder = new BoundRValuePlaceholder(node.Right, parameterTypes[i]) { WasCompilerGenerated = true };
+
+                // each assignment has a placeholder for a receiver and another for the source
+                BoundAssignmentOperator op = BindAssignment(node, leftPlaceholder, rightPlaceholder, diagnostics);
+                assignmentsBuilder.Add(new BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator.AssignmentInfo() { Assignment = op, LValuePlaceholder = leftPlaceholder, RValuePlaceholder = rightPlaceholder });
+            }
+
+            var assignments = assignmentsBuilder.ToImmutableAndFree();
+
+            TypeSymbol lastType = parameterTypes[parameterTypes.Length - 1];
+            return new BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator(node, checkedVariables, boundRHS, deconstructMethod, assignments, lastType);
+        }
+
+        /// <summary>
+        /// Find the Deconstruct method for the expression on the right, that will fit the assignable bound expressions on the left.
+        /// Returns true if the Deconstruct method is found.
+        ///     If so, it outputs the method.
+        /// </summary>
+        private static MethodSymbol FindDeconstruct(ImmutableArray<BoundExpression> checkedVariables, BoundExpression boundRHS, SyntaxNode node, DiagnosticBag diagnostics)
+        {
+            // find symbol for Deconstruct member
+            ImmutableArray<Symbol> candidates = boundRHS.Type.GetMembers("Deconstruct");
+            switch (candidates.Length)
+            {
+                case 0:
+                    Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_MissingDeconstruct, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type);
+                    return null;
+                case 1:
+                    break;
+                default:
+                    Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_AmbiguousDeconstruct, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type);
+                    return null;
+            }
+
+            Symbol deconstructMember = candidates[0];
+
+            // check that the deconstruct fits
+            if (deconstructMember.Kind != SymbolKind.Method)
+            {
+                Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_MissingDeconstruct, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type);
+                return null;
+            }
+
+            MethodSymbol deconstructMethod = (MethodSymbol)deconstructMember;
+            if (deconstructMethod.MethodKind != MethodKind.Ordinary)
+            {
+                Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_MissingDeconstruct, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type);
+                return null;
+            }
+
+            if (deconstructMethod.ParameterCount != checkedVariables.Length)
+            {
+                Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_DeconstructWrongParams, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type, checkedVariables.Length);
+                return null;
+            }
+
+            if (deconstructMethod.Parameters.Any(p => p.RefKind != RefKind.Out))
+            {
+                Error(diagnostics, ErrorCode.ERR_DeconstructRequiresOutParams, boundRHS.Syntax, boundRHS.Type);
+                return null;
+            }
+
+            return deconstructMethod;
+        }
+
         private BoundAssignmentOperator BindAssignment(AssignmentExpressionSyntax node, BoundExpression op1, BoundExpression op2, DiagnosticBag diagnostics)
         {
             Debug.Assert(op1 != null);
@@ -3422,7 +3531,7 @@ private BoundCatchBlock BindCatchBlock(CatchClauseSyntax node, ArrayBuilder<Boun
             var binder = GetBinder(node);
             Debug.Assert(binder != null);
 
-            ImmutableArray<LocalSymbol> locals = binder.GetDeclaredLocalsForScope(node); 
+            ImmutableArray<LocalSymbol> locals = binder.GetDeclaredLocalsForScope(node);
             BoundExpression exceptionSource = null;
             LocalSymbol local = locals.FirstOrDefault();
 

src/Compilers/CSharp/Portable/BoundTree/BoundNodes.xml

@@ -76,6 +76,19 @@
     <Field Name="Type" Type="TypeSymbol" Null="allow"/>
   </AbstractNode>
 
+  <AbstractNode Name="BoundValuePlaceholderBase" Base="BoundExpression">
+    <Field Name="Type" Type="TypeSymbol" Override="true" Null="disallow"/>
+  </AbstractNode>
+
+  <!--
+  This node is used to represent an expression returning value of a certain type.
+  It is used to perform intermediate binding, and will not survive the local rewriting.
+  -->
+  <Node Name="BoundLValuePlaceholder" Base="BoundValuePlaceholderBase" HasValidate="true">
+  </Node>
+  <Node Name="BoundRValuePlaceholder" Base="BoundValuePlaceholderBase" HasValidate="true">
+  </Node>
+
   <!-- only used by codegen -->
   <Node Name="BoundDup" Base="BoundExpression">
     <!-- when duplicating a local or parameter, must remember original ref kind -->
@@ -377,6 +390,19 @@
     <Field Name="RefKind" Type="RefKind" Null="NotApplicable"/>
   </Node>
 
+  <Node Name="BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator" Base="BoundExpression">
+    <!-- Non-null type is required for this node kind -->
+    <Field Name="Type" Type="TypeSymbol" Override="true" Null="disallow"/>
+
+    <Field Name="LeftVariables" Type="ImmutableArray&lt;BoundExpression&gt;"/>
+
+    <Field Name="Right" Type="BoundExpression"/>
+    <Field Name="DeconstructMember" Type="MethodSymbol" Null="disallow"/>
+
+    <!-- The assignments have placeholders for the left and right part of the assignment -->
+    <Field Name="Assignments" Type="ImmutableArray&lt;BoundDeconstructionAssignmentOperator.AssignmentInfo&gt;" Null="NotApplicable" SkipInVisitor="true"/>
+  </Node>
+
   <Node Name="BoundNullCoalescingOperator" Base="BoundExpression">
     <Field Name="LeftOperand" Type="BoundExpression"/>
     <Field Name="RightOperand" Type="BoundExpression"/>