Add list patterns proposal

proposals/list-patterns.md

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+# List patterns
+
+## Summary
+
+Lets you to match an array or a list with a sequence of patterns e.g. `array is {1, 2, 3}` will match an integer array of the length three with 1, 2, 3 as its elements, respectively.
+
+## Detailed design
+
+The pattern syntax is modified as follow:
+
+```antlr
+positional_pattern
+ : type? positional_pattern_clause length_pattern_clause? property_or_list_pattern_clause? simple_designation?
+ ;
+
+property_or_list_pattern_clause
+ : list_pattern_clause
+ | property_pattern_clause
+ ;
+
+property_pattern_clause
+ : '{' (subpattern (',' subpattern)* ','?)? '}'
+ ;
+
+list_pattern_clause
+ : '{' pattern (',' pattern)* ','? '}'
+ ;
+
+length_pattern_clause
+ : '[' pattern ']'
+ ;
+
+length_pattern
+ : type? length_pattern_clause property_or_list_pattern_clause? simple_designation?
+ ;
+
+list_pattern
+ : type? list_pattern_clause simple_designation?
+ ;
+
+property_pattern
+ : type? property_pattern_clause simple_designation?
+ ;
+
+slice_pattern
+ : '..' negated_pattern?
+ ;
+
+primary_pattern
+ : list_pattern
+ | length_pattern
+ | slice_pattern
+ | // all of the pattern forms previously defined
+ ;
+```
+There are three new patterns:
+
+- The *list_pattern* is used to match elements.
+- The *length_pattern* is used to match the length.
+- A *slice_pattern* is only permitted once and only directly in a *list_pattern_clause* and discards _**zero or more**_ elements.
+
+> **Open question**: Should we accept a general *pattern* following `..` in a *slice_pattern*?
+
+Notes:
+
+- Due to the ambiguity with *property_pattern*, a *list_pattern* cannot be empty and a *length_pattern* should be used instead to match a list with the length of zero, e.g. `[0]`. 
+- The *length_pattern_clause* must be in agreement with the inferred length from the *list_pattern_clause* (if any), e.g. `[0] {1}` is an error.
+ - However, `[1] {}` is **not** an error due to the length mismatch, rather, `{}` would be always parsed as an empty *property_pattern_clause*. We may want to add a warning for it so it would not be confused that way.
+- If the *type* is an *array_type*, the *length_pattern_clause* is disambiguated so that `int[] [0]` would match an empty integer array.
+- All other combinations are valid, for instance `T (p0, p1) [p2] { name: p3 } v` or `T (p0, p1) [p2] { p3 } v` where each clause can be omitted.
+
+> **Open question**: Should we support all these combinations?
+
+#### Pattern compatibility
+
+A *length_pattern* is compatible with any type that is *countable* - it has an accessible property getter that returns an `int` and has the name `Length` or `Count`. If both properties are present, the former is preferred.
+
+A *list_pattern* is compatible with any type that is *countable* as well as *indexable* - it has an accessible indexer that takes an `Index` or `int` argument. If both indexers are present, the former is preferred.
+
+A *slice_pattern* is compatible with any type that is *countable* as well as *sliceable* - it has an accessible indexer that takes a `Range` argument or otherwise an accessible `Slice` method that takes two `int` arguments. If both are present, the former is preferred.
+
+This set of rules is derived from the [***range indexer pattern***](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/proposals/csharp-8.0/ranges.md#implicit-index-support) but relaxed to ignore optional or `params` parameters, if any.
+
+> **Open question**: We should define the exact binding rules for any of these members and decide if we want to diverge from the range spec.
+
+#### Subsumption checking
+
+Subsumption checking works just like [positional patterns with `ITuple`](https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/proposals/csharp-8.0/patterns.md#positional-pattern) - corresponding subpatterns are matched by position plus an additional node for testing length.
+
+For example, the following code produces an error because both patterns yield the same DAG:
+
+```cs
+case {_, .., 1}: // expr.Length is >= 2 && expr[^1] is 1
+case {.., _, 1}: // expr.Length is >= 2 && expr[^1] is 1
+```
+Unlike:
+```cs
+case {_, 1, ..}: // expr.Length is >= 2 && expr[1] is 1
+case {.., 1, _}: // expr.Length is >= 2 && expr[^2] is 1
+```
+
+The order in which subpatterns are matched at runtime is unspecified, and a failed match may not attempt to match all subpatterns.
+
+> **Open question**: The pattern `{..}` tests for `expr.Length >= 0`. Should we omit such test (assuming `Length` is always non-negative)?
+
+#### Lowering
+
+A pattern of the form `expr is {1, 2, 3}` is equivalent to the following code (if compatible via implicit `Index` support):
+```cs
+expr.Length is 3
+&& expr[0] is 1
+&& expr[1] is 2
+&& expr[2] is 3
+```
+A *slice_pattern* acts like a proper discard i.e. no tests will be emitted for such pattern, rather it only affects other nodes, namely the length and indexer. For instance, a pattern of the form `expr is {1, .. var s, 3}` is equivalent to the following code (if compatible via explicit `Index` and `Range` support):
+```cs
+expr.Length is >= 2
+&& expr[new Index(0)] is 1
+&& expr[new Range(1, new Index(1, true))] is var s
+&& expr[new Index(1, true)] is 3
+```
+The *input type* for the *slice_pattern* is the return type of the underlying `this[Range]` or `Slice` method with two exceptions: For `string` and arrays, `string.Substring` and `RuntimeHelpers.GetSubArray` will be used, respectively.
+
+### Additional types
+
+Beyond the pattern-based mechanism outlined above, there are an additional two set of types that can be covered as a special case.
+
+- **Multi-dimensional arrays**: All nested list patterns must agree to a length range.
+- **Foreach-able types**: This includes pattern-based and extension `GetEnumerator`.
+
+A slice subpattern (i.e. the pattern following `..` in a *slice_pattern*) is disallowed for either of the above.
+
+## Unresolved questions
+
+All multi-dimensional arrays can be non-zero-based. We can either:
+
+1. Add a runtime helper to check if the array is zero-based across all dimensions.
+2. Call `GetLowerBound` and add it to each indexer access to pass the *correct* index.
+3. Assume all arrays are zero-based since that's the default for arrays created by `new` expressions.