merge master

asg/src/error/mod.rs

@@ -192,6 +192,13 @@ impl AsgConvertError {
         )
     }
 
+    pub fn duplicate_variable_definition(name: &str, span: &Span) -> Self {
+        Self::new_from_span(
+            format!("a variable named \"{}\" already exists in this scope", name),
+            span,
+        )
+    }
+
     pub fn index_into_non_tuple(name: &str, span: &Span) -> Self {
         Self::new_from_span(format!("failed to index into non-tuple '{}'", name), span)
     }

asg/src/statement/definition.rs

@@ -130,10 +130,16 @@ impl<'a> FromAst<'a, leo_ast::DefinitionStatement> for &'a Statement<'a> {
         }
 
         for variable in variables.iter() {
-            scope
-                .variables
-                .borrow_mut()
-                .insert(variable.borrow().name.name.to_string(), *variable);
+            let mut variables = scope.variables.borrow_mut();
+            let var_name = variable.borrow().name.name.to_string();
+            if variables.contains_key(&var_name) {
+                return Err(AsgConvertError::duplicate_variable_definition(
+                    &var_name,
+                    &statement.span,
+                ));
+            }
+
+            variables.insert(var_name, *variable);
         }
 
         let statement = scope

docs/rfc/006-arrays-without-size.md

@@ -120,6 +120,15 @@ Thus, this RFC also proposed to extend Leo with such an operator.
 A possibility is `<expression>.length`, where `<expression>` is an expression of array type.
 A variation is `<expression>.length()`, if we want it look more like a built-in method on arrays.
 Yet another option is `length(<expression>)`, which is more like a built-in function.
+A shorter name could be `len`, leading to the three possibilities
+`<expression>.len`, `<expression>.len()`, and `len(<expression>)`.
+So one dimension of the choice is the name (`length` vs. `len`),
+and another dimension is the style:
+member variable style,
+member function style,
+or global function style.
+The decision on the latter should be driven by broader considerations
+of how we want to treat this kind of built-in operators.
 
 Note that the result of this operator can, and in fact must, be calculated at compile time;
 not as part of the Leo interpreter, but rather as part of the flattening of Leo to R1CS.

docs/rfc/007-type-aliases.md

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+# Leo RFC 007: Type Aliases
+
+## Authors
+
+- Max Bruce
+- Collin Chin
+- Alessandro Coglio
+- Eric McCarthy
+- Jon Pavlik
+- Damir Shamanaev
+- Damon Sicore
+- Howard Wu
+
+## Status
+
+DRAFT
+
+# Summary
+
+This RFC proposes the addition of type aliases to Leo,
+i.e. identifiers that abbreviate types and can be used wherever the latter can be used.
+A new top-level construct is proposed to define type aliases; no circularities are allowed.
+Type aliases are expanded away during compilation.
+
+# Motivation
+
+Many programming languages provide the ability to create aliases (i.e. synonyms) of types, such as C's `typedef`.
+The purpose may be to abbreviate a longer type,
+such as an alias `matrix` for `[i32; (3, 3)]` in an application in which 3x3 matrices of 32-bit integers are relevant
+(e.g. for 3-D rotations, even though fractional numbers may be more realistic).
+The purpose may also be to clarify the purpose and use of an existing type,
+such as an alias `balance` for `u64` in an application that keeps track of balances.
+
+The initial motivation that inspired this RFC (along with other RFCs)
+was the ability to have a type `string` for strings.
+Strings are arrays of characters according to RFC 001.
+With the array types of unspecified size proposed in RFC 006,
+`[char; _]` becomes a generic type for strings, which is desirable to alias with `string`.
+
+# Design
+
+## Syntax
+
+The ABNF grammar changes as follows:
+```ts
+; modified rule:
+keyword = ...
+        / %s"true"
+        / %s"type" ; new
+        / %s"u8"
+        / ...
+
+; new rule:
+type-alias-declaration = %s"type" identifier "=" type ";"
+
+; modified rule:
+declaration = import-declaration
+            / function-declaration
+            / circuit-declaration
+            / constant-declaration
+            / type-alias-declaration ; new
+```
+
+A type alias declaration introduces the identifier to stand for the type.
+Only top-level type alias declarations are supported;
+they are not supported inside functions or circuit types.
+
+## Semantics
+
+There must be no direct or indirect circularity in the type aliases.
+That is, it must be possible to expand all the type aliases away,
+obtaining an equivalent program without any type aliases.
+
+Note that the built-in `Self` is a bit like a type alias, standing for the enclosing circuit type;
+and `Self` is replaced with the enclosing circuit type during canonicalization.
+Thus, canonicalization could be a natural place to expand user-defined type aliases;
+after all, type aliases introduce multiple ways to denote the same types
+(and not just via direct aliasing, but also via indirect aliasing, or via aliasing of components),
+and canonicalization serves exactly to reduce multiple ways to say the same thing to one canonical way.
+
+On the other hand, expanding type aliases is more complicated than the current canonicalization transformations,
+which are all local and relatively simple.
+Expanding type aliases requires not only checking for circularities,
+but also to take into account references to type aliases from import declarations.
+For this reason, we may perform type alias expansion after canonicalization,
+such as just before type checking and inference.
+We could also make the expansion a part of the type checking and inference process,
+which already transforms the program by inferring missing types,
+so it could also expand type aliases away.
+
+In any case, it seems beneficial to expand type aliases away
+(whether during canonicalization or as part or preamble to type checking and inference)
+prior to performing more processing of the program for eventual compilation to R1CS.
+
+## Examples
+
+The aforementioned 3x3 matrix example could be written as follows:
+```ts
+type matrix = [u32; (3, 3)];
+
+function matrix_multiply(x: matrix, y: matrix) -> matrix {
+    ...
+}
+```
+
+The aforementioned balance example could be written as follows:
+```ts
+type balance = u64;
+
+function f(...) -> (..., balance, ...) {
+    ...
+}
+```
+
+The aforementioned string example could be written as follows:
+```ts
+type string = [char; _];
+
+function f(str: string) -> ... {
+    ...
+}
+```
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+As other extensions of the language, this makes things inherently a bit more complicated.
+
+# Effect on Ecosystem
+
+None; this is just a convenience for the Leo developer.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+An alternative to creating a type alias
+```ts
+type T = U;
+```
+is to create a circuit type
+```ts
+circuit T { get: U }
+```
+that contains a single member variable.
+
+This is clearly not equivalent to a type alias, because it involves conversions between `T` and `U`
+```ts
+T { get: u } // convert u:U to T
+t.get // convert t:T to U
+```
+whereas a type alias involves no conversions:
+if `T` is an alias of `U`, then `T` and `U` are the same type,
+more precisely two syntactically different ways to designate the same semantic type.
+
+While the conversions generally cause overhead in traditional programming languages,
+this may not be the case for Leo's compilation to R1CS,
+in which everything is flattened, including member variables of circuit types.
+Thus, it may be the case that the circuit `T` above reduces to just its member `U` in R1CS.
+
+It might also be argued that wrapping a type into a one-member-variable circuit type
+could be a better practice than aliasing the type, to enforce better type separation and safety.
+
+We need to consider the pros and cons of the two approaches,
+particularly in light of Leo's non-traditional compilation target.

docs/rfc/008-built-in-declarations.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# Leo RFC 008: Built-in Declarations
+
+## Authors
+
+- Max Bruce
+- Collin Chin
+- Alessandro Coglio
+- Eric McCarthy
+- Jon Pavlik
+- Damir Shamanaev
+- Damon Sicore
+- Howard Wu
+
+## Status
+
+DRAFT
+
+# Summary
+
+This RFC proposes a framework for making certain (top-level) declarations (e.g. type aliases)
+available in every Leo program without the need to explicitly write those declarations.
+These may be hardwired into the language, or provided by standard libraries/packages;
+in the latter case, the libraries may be either implicitly imported or required to be explicitly imported.
+
+# Motivation
+
+It is common for programming languages to provide predefined types, functions, etc.
+that can be readily used in programs.
+The initial motivation for this in Leo was to have a type alias `string` for character arrays of unspecified sizes
+(array types of unspecified sizes and type aliases are discussed in separate RFCs),
+but the feature is clearly more general.
+
+# Design
+
+Leo supports four kinds of top-level declarations:
+- Import declarations.
+- Function declarations.
+- Circuit type declarations.
+- Global constant declarations.
+- Type alias declarations. (Proposed in a separate RFC.)
+
+Leaving import declarations aside for the moment since they are "meta" in some sense
+(as they bring in names of entities declared elsewhere),
+it may make sense for any of the four kinds of declarations above to have built-in instances,
+i.e. we could have some built-in functions, circuit types, global constants, and type aliases.
+This is why this RFC talks of built-in declarations, more broadly than just built-in type aliases that inspired it.
+
+The built-in status of the envisioned declarations could be achieved in slightly different ways:
+1. Their names could be simply available in any program,
+   without any explicit declaration found anywhere for them.
+2. They could be declared in some core library files explicitly,
+   and be available in any program without needing to be explicitly import them,
+   like `java.lang.String` in Java or `std::Option` in Rust.
+3. They could be declared in some core library files explicitly,
+   and be available only in programs that explicitly import them.
+
+From a user's perspective, there is not a lot of difference between cases 1 and 2 above:
+in both cases, the names are available; the only difference is that in case 2 the user can see the declaration somewhere.
+
+Also note that case 2 could be seen as having an implicit (i.e. built-in) import of the library/libraries in question.
+Again, imports are "meta" in this context, and what counts are really the other kinds of declarations.
+
+In cases 2 and 3, a related but somewhat independent issue is whether those declarations have Leo definitions or not.
+The Leo library already includes functions like the one for BLAKE2s that are not defined in Leo,
+but rather "natively" in Rust/R1CS.
+
+# Drawbacks
+
+This does not seem to bring any drawbacks.
+
+# Effect on Ecosystem
+
+This may interact with libraries and packages in some way,
+if we go with case 2 or 3 above.
+But it should be not much different from regular libraries/packages.
+
+# Alternatives
+
+The 'Design' section above currently discusses a few alternatives,
+rather than prescribing a defined approach.
+When consensus is reached on one of the alternatives discussed there,
+the others will be moved to this section.

tests/compiler/function/duplicate_definition_fail.leo

@@ -1,11 +1,13 @@
 /*
 namespace: Compile
 expectation: Fail
+input_file: input/integers.in
 */
 
 
-function main() {
-    console.log("{}", 1u8);  
+function main(a: u32) -> u32 {
+    console.log("{}", 1u8);
+    return 10u32; 
 }
 
 function main() {

tests/compiler/statements/duplicate_variable.leo

@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+/*
+namespace: Compile
+expectation: Fail
+input_file: inputs/dummy.in
+*/
+
+function main(k: bool) -> bool {
+	let x = 1u8;
+  let x = true;
+	
+	return k == true;
+}

tests/expectations/compiler/compiler/function/duplicate_definition_fail.leo.out

@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@
 namespace: Compile
 expectation: Fail
 outputs:
-  - "    --> compiler-test:8:1\n     |\n   8 | function main() {\n|\n   9 | ...\n|\n  10 | }\n     | ^\n     |\n     = a function named \"main\" already exists in this scope"
+  - "- Circuit has no constraints, use inputs and registers in program to produce them"

tests/expectations/compiler/compiler/statements/duplicate_variable.leo.out

@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+---
+namespace: Compile
+expectation: Fail
+outputs:
+  - "    --> compiler-test:5:3\n     |\n   5 |   let x = true;\n     |   ^^^^^^^^^^^^\n     |\n     = a variable named \"x\" already exists in this scope"