Parse inline function signatures

[kazcw]

Pull Request Description

Implements #6166.

Important Notes

• More consistent handling of default arguments. default is a valid identifier, and only has special meaning when it isn't bound in scope. Since distinguishing the builtin default from an identifier called default cannot be done until alias analysis has been performed, default is now represented in the AST as a regular identifier.
• TreeToIr: Remove insideTypeAscription. It was only used for bug-for-bug compatibility with the old parser during the transition.

Checklist

Please ensure that the following checklist has been satisfied before submitting the PR:

• The documentation has been updated, if necessary.
• Screenshots/screencasts have been attached, if there are any visual changes. For interactive or animated visual changes, a screencast is preferred.
• All code follows the
  Scala,
  Java,
  and
  Rust
  style guides. In case you are using a language not listed above, follow the Rust style guide.
• All code has been tested:
  • Unit tests have been written where possible.
  • If GUI codebase was changed, the GUI was tested when built using ./run ide build.

[JaroslavTulach]

This PR claims to fix #6166. It seems to do so, but it also does something with default. That doesn't seem to be in scope of #6166...

More consistent handling of default arguments. default is a valid identifier, and only has special meaning when it isn't bound in scope. Since distinguishing the builtin default from an identifier called default cannot be done until alias analysis has been performed, default is now represented in the AST as a regular identifier.

... OK, can we see how the default behaves in the runtime? For example by modifying the ExecCompilerTest?

[JaroslavTulach]

Can you also add such a test to ExecCompilerTest?

[kazcw]

@JaroslavTulach I added tests for default. One is @Ignored for now, because it seems default is not implemented yet. Opened a compiler bug: #8480.

[radeusgd]

I think we should also get a test when there is more than 0 arguments 🙂

I'd be happy to add a test case, may I push to your branch?

[radeusgd]

I'd like to add a following patch:

Subject: [PATCH] add 2 more compiler test cases
---
Index: engine/runtime/src/test/java/org/enso/compiler/ExecCompilerTest.java
IDEA additional info:
Subsystem: com.intellij.openapi.diff.impl.patch.CharsetEP
<+>UTF-8
===================================================================
diff --git a/engine/runtime/src/test/java/org/enso/compiler/ExecCompilerTest.java b/engine/runtime/src/test/java/org/enso/compiler/ExecCompilerTest.java
--- a/engine/runtime/src/test/java/org/enso/compiler/ExecCompilerTest.java	(revision 45ed77d513735bce59e2c8739a55a38560a69ccb)
+++ b/engine/runtime/src/test/java/org/enso/compiler/ExecCompilerTest.java	(revision 7273a5c43575d2e913caa18f9a4edc071d6df135)
@@ -199,6 +199,29 @@
     assertEquals("10 % 3 is one", 1, result.asInt());
   }
 
+  @Test
+  public void inlineReturnSignature() throws Exception {
+    var module = ctx.eval("enso", """
+    foo (x : Integer) (y : Integer) -> Integer = 10*x + y
+    """);
+    var foo = module.invokeMember("eval_expression", "foo");
+    assertTrue("foo a function", foo.canExecute());
+    assertEquals(45, foo.execute(4, 5).asInt());
+  }
+
+  @Test
+  public void inlineReturnSignatureOnMemberMethod() throws Exception {
+    var module = ctx.eval("enso", """
+    type My_Type
+        Value x
+        
+        foo self (y : Integer) z -> Integer = 100*z + 10*y + self.x
+    """);
+    var instance = module.invokeMember("eval_expression", "My_Type.Value 1");
+    var result = instance.invokeMember("foo", 2, 3);
+    assertEquals(321, result.asInt());
+  }
+
   @Test
   public void inlineReturnSignatureWithoutArguments() throws Exception {
     var module = ctx.eval("enso", """

Tests are passing with it.

@kazcw May I push it to this PR?

[kazcw]

@radeusgd Sure.

[JaroslavTulach]

Continuations:

• Check return type of functions (opt-in) #8240
• Opt-in return type checks #8502