Represent type(f) correctly in the ast #1609
Conversation
This makes the ast correct, and also the following code is now parsed
correctly:
function foo() {
type(int);
}
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1609 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 87.94% 88.14% +0.19%
==========================================
Files 137 137
Lines 65902 65992 +90
==========================================
+ Hits 57959 58166 +207
+ Misses 7943 7826 -117 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
seanyoung
force-pushed
the
type-operator
branch
from
3f99f81
to
e37a8c8
Compare
| ast::Builtin::TypeRuntimeCode | ast::Builtin::TypeCreatorCode => { | ||
| let ast::Expression::TypeOperator { | ||
| ty: Type::Contract(contract_no), | ||
| .. | ||
| } = &args[0] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of a builtin, wouldn't it be nicer of item we access from a type operator was a member access? This way you could define the possible members for the operator.
I found it somewhat uncomfortable that you require the argument to be TypeOperator in all cases with an unreachable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As there is a constraint for the argument, perhaps it could be enforced in another way that avoids the unreachable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What do you mean by member access? Expression::StructMember? That expression is not suitable, it takes a field number and it has "Struct" in its name.
You may want the location of type(..) in type(int) . min and type(int) can be free standing too, so a separate Expression::TypeOperator enum makes sense to me.
Please make suggestions because I have no idea.
| let mut creates = Vec::new(); | ||
| let mut diagnostics = Diagnostics::default(); | ||
|
|
||
| swap(&mut creates, &mut ns.contracts[contract_no].creates); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is the swap necessary?
Co-authored-by: Lucas Steuernagel <38472950+LucasSte@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
|
If there are no further comments, I'll merge |
This makes the ast correct, and also the following code is now parsed correctly:
type(enum-type).minortype(enum).minis now supported.This fixes all the issues wrt
type(T)in the solc tests.