[Laszlo-dev] For Review: Change 20071206-dda-9 Summary: Fixes for [not] nullable syntax, and return type syntax for function.

[Donald Anderson]

The grammar should not accept both '!' '?' at once.
We do track the presence of each independently, so we
can emit precisely the same as was input.

On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:30 PM, P T Withington wrote:

> Approved.
>
> I wonder if we really need to store nullable and notnullable, or if  
> we can just make the gammar smarter so that you can't have both?
>
> On 2007-12-06, at 17:58 EST, Donald Anderson wrote:
>
>> Change 20071206-dda-9 by dda at freddie.local on 2007-12-06 17:36:12 EST
>>    in /Users/dda/laszlo/src/svn/openlaszlo/trunk-b
>>    for http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/trunk
>>
>> Summary: Fixes for [not] nullable syntax, and return type syntax  
>> for function.
>>
>> New Features: none
>>
>> Bugs Fixed: LPP-5059
>>
>> Technical Reviewer: ptw
>> QA Reviewer: hminsky
>> Doc Reviewer: (pending)
>>
>> Documentation: none
>>
>> Release Notes: none - feature is not yet released or used.
>>
>> Details:
>>    The grammar fix for nullable is straightforward.
>>
>>    For function return values, given that functions
>>    can be declared with/or without an identifier (using function  
>> expressions),
>>    we cannot put the type information on an ASTIdentifier, since
>>    there may not be one.  The logical place to put the return value
>>    is on the FormalParameterList, which might now be thought of as
>>    the function's signature (if it weren't rather disruptive,
>>    I would have changed the name).  Any function whether created
>>    as a declaration or expression, has a FormalParamterList, so it
>>    is a convenient place in the grammar.  Making this change
>>    actually cleaned up the grammar slightly, I think.
>>
>> Tests:
>> 1)   Run test/typevar.lzx to check nullable syntax, should give no  
>> errors.
>>
>> 2)   Run lzsc on:
>>
>> // tests for return types
>>
>> function f1() { }
>> function f2() : void { }
>> function f3():Integer? { }
>> function f4():Integer! { }
>> function f5(x):Integer! { }
>> function f6(x:int):Integer! { }
>> function f7(x:int,y):Integer! { }
>> function f8(x,y:int):Integer! { }
>> function f9(x:int,y:int):Integer! { }
>> function f10(x:int?,y:int):Integer! { }
>> function f11(x:int?,y:int!):Integer! { }
>> var x = function (x:int?,y:int!):Integer! { }
>>
>>   Running lzsc is currently the only way to test this, that will  
>> probably change soon.
>>
>> 3)   Compared binary LFC files from compiler to make sure no  
>> regressions.
>>
>> 4)   Ran smokecheck.lzx to make sure no regressions.
>>
>>
>> Files:
>> M      test/typevar.lzx
>> M      WEB-INF/lps/server/sc/src/org/openlaszlo/sc/Parser.jjt
>>
>> Changeset: http://svn.openlaszlo.org/openlaszlo/patches/20071206- 
>> dda-9.tar
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Don Anderson
>> Java/C/C++, Berkeley DB, systems consultant
>>
>> Voice:  617-547-7881
>> Email:  dda at ddanderson.com
>> WWW:    http://www.ddanderson.com
>>
>


--

Don Anderson
Java/C/C++, Berkeley DB, systems consultant

Voice:  617-547-7881
Email:  dda at ddanderson.com
WWW:    http://www.ddanderson.com