Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update list-patterns.md #4790

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
May 28, 2021
Merged

Update list-patterns.md #4790

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
6f61854
Update list-patterns.md
alrz May 28, 2021
b253865
Update list-patterns.md
alrz May 28, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
33 changes: 8 additions & 25 deletions proposals/list-patterns.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ property_pattern
;

slice_pattern
: '..' negated_pattern?
: '..' pattern?
Copy link
Member Author

@alrz alrz May 28, 2021 •
edited by jcouv
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Wasn't mentioned in LDM. But I think "all patterns" includes combinators. #Resolved

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It does. I'm not familiar enough with the various levels of the pattern grammar, does negated_pattern not include combinators?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No it doesn't. I've started this as an unary operator, hence the precedence.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: Consider adding links to previous patterns specs:

https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/proposals/csharp-7.0/pattern-matching.md
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/proposals/csharp-8.0/patterns.md
https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/main/proposals/csharp-9.0/patterns3.md

;

primary_pattern
Expand All @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ There are three new patterns:
- 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*?
> **Open question**: Should we accept a general *pattern* following `..` in a *slice_pattern*? (answer [LDM 2021-05-26]: Yes, any pattern is allowed after a slice.)

Notes:

Expand All @@ -69,28 +69,23 @@ Notes:
- 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 *length_pattern* is also compatible with any type that is *enumerable* — it can be used in `foreach`.

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 *list_pattern* is compatible with any type that is *countable* as well as *indexable* — it has an accessible indexer that takes an `Index` as the argument or otherwise an accessible indexer with a single `int` parameter. If both indexers are present, the former is preferred.
A *list_pattern* is also compatible with any type that is *enumerable*.

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.
A *slice_pattern* without a subpattern is also compatible with any type that is *enumerable*.
A *slice_pattern* with a subpattern 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 with two `int` parameters. If both are present, the former is preferred.
A *slice_pattern* without a subpattern is compatible with any type that is compatible with a *list_pattern*.
Copy link
Member Author

@alrz alrz May 28, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

📝 We shouldn't require Slice method if there is no subpattern. This'd be consistent with the decision about {..}.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Might need to mention discard subpattern?

Copy link
Member Author

@alrz alrz May 28, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With this change, we have:

  • {..} works even without this[Range] or a proper Slice method.
  • {.._} requires this[Range]/Slice. The codegen, however, is permitted to omit the invocation (which we do). That is not limited to discards or the slice pattern, we skip an evaluation when the output is unused. e.g. with an unused variable etc.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds like we currently don't include unused variables here, but it's something that could be done as an optimization.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here's an example to demonstrate it's not limited to discard: if (this is {IntProp: {}}){} IntProp is not called here.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The codegen, however, is permitted to omit the invocation (which we do).

This is a good distinction, but I do think it is good to make this not an optimization: it gets back to making sure that behavior of something like default(ImmutableArray<int>) is { .._ } is well-defined.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

At the moment the behavior of default(ImmutableArray<int>) is { .._ } is an error. "unsupported type for slice pattern"

ImmutableArray doesn't expose a Slice method or range indexer.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, but additions are tracked by dotnet/runtime#22928.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My main concern is that when a type is not sliceable, we should be able to do {1, ..} etc. Not every list should be required to be sliceable only to be able to skip elements in the list pattern.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with the behavior as spec'ed in this PR. I'd let .._ and ..var unused require a sliceable type. It's conceptually simpler.

For { ..var unused }: during binding we don't know that var unused is unused.
For { .._ }: @333fred , I can add a note to test plan to rediscuss if you think this should not require a sliceable type.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For { .._ }

Just like we still need an indexable type for {_} that we're not going to use, {.._} should require a sliceable type that we may not use. I think the part that we decide to not evaluate the method, is orthogonal to binding rules.


```
enumerable is { 1, 2, .. } // okay
enumerable is { 1, 2, ..var x } // error
```

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.
> **Open question**: Should extension methods play a role in sliceability?
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).

#### Semantics on enumerable type

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -153,7 +148,7 @@ 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)?
> **Open question**: By this definition, the pattern `{..}` tests for `expr.Length >= 0`. Should we omit such test, assuming `Length` is always non-negative? (answer [LDM 2021-05-26]: `{ .. }` will not emit a Length check)
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

📝 Notes were clear that this is about semantics and not an optimization.


#### Lowering on countable/indexeable/sliceable type

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -315,21 +310,9 @@ This should allow merging branches of the patterns DAG, thus avoiding creating m
Note: async enumerables are out-of-scope. (Confirmed in LDM 4/12/2021)
Note: sub-patterns are disallowed in list-patterns on enumerables for now despite some desirable uses: `e is { 1, 2, ..[var count] }` (LDM 4/12/2021)

### 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

1. 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.
1. Should we support multi-dimensional arrays? (answer [LDM 2021-05-26]: Not supported. If we want to make a general MD-array focused release, we would want to revisit all the areas they're currently lacking, not just list patterns.)
1. Should we limit the list-pattern to `IEnumerable` types? Then we could allow `{ 1, 2, ..var x }` (`x` would be an `IEnumerable` we would cook up) (answer [LDM 4/12/2021]: no, we'll disallow sub-pattern in slice pattern on enumerable for now)
2. Should we try and optimize list-patterns like `{ 1, _, _ }` on a countable enumerable type? We could just check the first enumerated element then check `Length`/`Count`. Can we assume that `Count` agrees with enumerated count?
3. Should we try to cut the enumeration short for length-patterns on enumerables in some cases? (computing min/max acceptable count and checking partial count against that)
Expand Down