Since we only allow four kinds of input section titles, corresponding to the
public/private/constant/const characterization of function inputs, it seems
beneficial to put this into the grammar, where it is easily captured.
Note that the previous version of the rule, which uses `identifier`, is not
quite right, because, for example, `public` is not an identiifer (it is a
keyword). So the rule would have to be modified anyways.
Given that the Leo Reference explains well that the format string grammar
applies to the character sequence after processing escapes, we do not need to
say this here. Instead, we just explain the rule similarly to what we do for
others.
This mentions embeddings and isolates besides overrides, in accordance with the
official terminology at https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/.
This update was discussed and agreed with @bendyarm.
Note: The Leo Reference includes text explaining these exclusions, with links to
the document above as well to the web site and paper about Trojan source
exploits.
This is the (sub)grammar for input files. It is an initial draft, written based
on the Notion page 'Leo Input File Doc/Spec'. This should be compared with the
currently implemented parser of input (i.e. .in) files.
As the Leo Reference will describe (that part has not been written yet), the
input grammar is based on the lexical grammar, i.e. an input file consists of
tokens, comments, and whitespace. However, only some tokens (compared to the
syntactic grammar for Leo code files) are used, namely the ones reachable from
the `input-file` nonterminal.
Currently (i.e. im this initial version of Leo) `input-type` is (any) `type` and
`input-expression` is just a `literal`, but these may evolve as we extend the
language (e.g. we'll probably disallow circuit types and allow tuple and array
constructions). The intent is that `input-type` will be a subset of `type` and
that `input-expression` will be a subset of `expression`.
This does not change the language. It just adds a rule to name binary
expressions explicitly. This makes the relation with ternary expressions
clearer, and as usual it explicates more terminology.
* [ABNF] Add a rule for function calls.
This does not change the language. It just slightly reformulates the grammar for
greater clarity and to help establish a nomenclature for constructs.
Also remove a trailing space.
* [ABNF] Re-generate markdown.
Co-authored-by: collin <16715212+collinc97@users.noreply.github.com>
This mirrors the structure of the rules for types, where there is an
`integer-type` consisting of `unsigned-type` and `signed-type`.
There is no change to the language.
In the currently restricted version of Leo, this is necessary for the numerals
in affine group literals to be tokens.
No change necessary to the lexer/parser, which already handle this properly.
Since we do not have tuple in this version of Leo, we cannot have expression
statements, because normally expressions used as statements would have to return
the empty tuple, since we disallow throwing away values in Leo.
Since this pre-testnet3 version of Leo does not support tuple types, and since a
missing function type is meant to be interpreted as the empty tuple type `()` in
future versions of Leo, it seems appropriate to require a function output type
in this version of Leo. We could instead default to a different type
(e.g. bool), but it seems cleaner to require it for now, and make it optional
later.
This mirrors, in pre-testnet3, the change in PR #1699 in testnet3.
Since in pre-testnet3 we have fewer kinds expressions, the category of postfix
expressions disappears altogether with this re-classification.
This does not change the language. It only renames two related rule names:
function-input => named-parameter
function-inputs => named-parameters
According to the new nomenclature, there are function parameters, which are self
parameters and named parameters: the nomenclature is clear and "symmetric".
The problem with the previous nomenclature is that both self and named
parameters are inputs, not just the named ones.
These are needed to make parsing unambiguous. They require the test of a
conditional statement and the ending bound of a loop statement to not be or
start with a circuit expression.
This is obtained by removing features from the grammar currently in the testnet3
branch.
The documentation comments have been removed to keep the file smaller and
simpler to read, as readers of this file should be already familiar with Leo.
Furthermore, that documentation material is being moved to the Leo Language
Reference.
This commit also folds the format string grammar (for console print strings)
into (a separate section of) the same file, again for simplicity. The previous
separate small file (and generated markdown) for format strings has thus been
removed.
Given that arithmetic literals are now all typed in the grammar, we need
numerals to be listed as tokens. Otherwise, array dimensions and tuple indices
would not be tokens, but they must be.
This applies both to the rule name and to the terminology used for that, namely
for a non-empty sequence of decimal digits.
While 'natural' was meant to describe a natural number (i.e. a non-negative
integer: 0, 1, 2, ...), it is perhaps not a familiar term to many users.
On the other hand, 'integer', while often used in programming languages for this
kind of thing, is not ideal as integers may be negative.
Also, assuming type inference, a lone numeral like `17` may actually not denote
an integer number at all, because it may actually denote a group element if type
inference turns it into `17group`, and group elements are not integers.
All in all, 'numeral' seems like a good term, also according to its dictionary
definition. It is used in the Java grammar to denote this kind of thing, for
instance.
If, in the future, we want to allow hexadecimal, octal, or binary notation, we
could rename this to `decimal-numeral`, introduce `hexadecimal-numeral`,
`octal-numeral`, and `binary-numeral`, and `numeral` as the union of these.
This does not change the grammar. It merely updates some text in the comments,
which shows a rule that was changed at some point but its copy in the comments
was not properly updated.
Thanks to @bendyarm for noticing this.
