Add new proposal for lexical scoping

proposals/0000-lexical-scope.md

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+# Lexical Scoping
+
+- JEP: (leave blank)
+- Author: @jamesls
+- Created: 2023-03-21
+
+## Abstract
+[abstract]: #abstract
+
+This JEP proposes the introduction of lexical scoping through a new
+`let` expression. You can now bind variables that are evaluated in the
+context of a given lexical scope. This enables queries that can refer to
+elements defined outside of their current scope, which is not currently
+possible. This JEP supercedes JEP 11, which proposed similar functionality
+through a `let()` function.
+
+## Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+A JMESPath expression is always evaluated in the context of a current
+element, which can be explicitly referred to via the `@` token. The
+current element changes as expressions are evaluated. For example,
+suppose we had the expression `foo.bar[0]` that we want to evalute against
+an input document of:
+
+```json
+{"foo": {"bar": ["hello", "world"]}, "baz": "baz"}
+```
+
+The expression, and the associated current element are evaluated as follows:
+
+```
+# Start
+expression = foo.bar[0]
+@ = {"foo": {"bar": ["hello", "world"]}, "baz": "baz"}
+
+# Step 1
+expression = foo
+@ = {"foo": {"bar": ["hello", "world"]}, "baz": "baz"}
+result = {"bar": ["hello", "world"]}
+
+# Step 2
+expression = bar
+@ = {"bar": ["hello", "world"]}
+result = ["hello", "world"]
+
+# Step 3
+expression = [0]
+@ = ["hello", "world"]
+result = "hello"
+```
+
+The end result of evaluating this expression is `"hello"`. Note that each
+step changes that values that are accessible to the current expression being
+evaluated. In "Step 2", it is not possible for the expression to reference
+the value of `"baz"` in the current element of the previous step, "Step 1".
+
+This ability to reference variables in a parent scope is a serious limitation
+of JMESPath, and anecdotally is one of the commonly requested features
+of the language. Below are examples of input documents and the desired output
+documents that aren't possible to create with the current version of
+JMESPath:
+
+```
+Input:
+
+[
+ {"home_state": "WA",
+ "states": [
+ {"name": "WA", "cities": ["Seattle", "Bellevue", "Olympia"]},
+ {"name": "CA", "cities": ["Los Angeles", "San Francisco"]},
+ {"name": "NY", "cities": ["New York City", "Albany"]}
+ ]
+ },
+ {"home_state": "NY",
+ "states": [
+ {"name": "WA", "cities": ["Seattle", "Bellevue", "Olympia"]},
+ {"name": "CA", "cities": ["Los Angeles", "San Francisco"]},
+ {"name": "NY", "cities": ["New York City", "Albany"]}
+ ]
+ }
+]
+
+
+(for each list in "states", select the list of cities associated
+ with the state defined in the "home_state" key)
+
+Output:
+
+[
+ ["Seattle", "Bellevue", "Olympia"],
+ ["New York City", "Albany"]
+]
+```
+
+```
+Input:
+{"imageDetails": [
+ {
+ "repositoryName": "org/first-repo",
+ "imageTags": ["latest", "v1.0", "v1.2"],
+ "imageDigest": "sha256:abcd"
+ },
+ {
+ "repositoryName": "org/second-repo",
+ "imageTags": ["v2.0", "v2.2"],
+ "imageDigest": "sha256:efgh"
+ },
+]}
+
+
+(create a list of pairs containing an image tag and its associated repo name)
+
+Output:
+
+[
+ ["latest", "org/first-repo"],
+ ["v1.0", "org/first-repo"],
+ ["v1.2", "org/first-repo"],
+ ["v2.0", "org/second-repo"],
+ ["v2.2", "org/second-repo"],
+]
+```
+
+In order to support these queries we need some way for an expression to
+reference values that exist outside of its implicit current element.
+
+
+## Specification
+[specification]: #specification
+
+A new "let expression" is added to the language. The expression has the
+format: `let <bindings> in <expr>`. The updated grammar rules in ABNF are:
+
+```
+let-expression = "let" bindings "in" expression
+bindings = variable-binding *( "," variable-binding )
+variable-binding = variable-ref "=" expression
+variable-ref = "$" unquoted-string
+```
+
+The `let-expression` and `variable-ref` rule are also added as a new expression
+types:
+
+```
+expression =/ let-expression / variable-ref
+```
+
+Examples of this new syntax:
+
+* `let $foo = bar in {a: myvar, b: $foo}`
+* `let $foo = baz[0] in bar[? baz == $foo ] | [0]`
+* `let $a = b, $c = d in bar[*].[$a, $c, foo, bar]`
+
+### New evaluation rules
+
+Let expressions are evaluated as follows.
+
+Given the rule `"let" bindings "in" expression`, the `bindings` rule is
+processed first. Each `variable-binding` within the `bindings` rule defines
+the name of a variable and an expression. Each expression is evaluated, and the
+result of this evaluation is then bound to the associated variable name.
+
+Once all the `variable-binding` rules have been processed, the associated
+`expression` clause of the let expression is then evaluated. During the
+evaluation of the expression, any references, via the `variable-ref` rule, to a
+variable name will evaluate to the value bound to the variable. Once the
+associated expression has been evaluated, the let expression itself evaluates
+to the result of this expression. After the let expression has been evaluated,
+the variable bindings associated with the let expression are now longer valid.
+This is also referred to as the visibility of a binding; the bindings of a
+let expression are only visible during the evaluation of the `expression`
+clause of the let expression.
+
+When evaluating the `bindings` rule, a `variable-binding` for a variable name
+that is already visible in the current scope will replace the existing binding
+when evaluating the `expression` clause of the let expression. This means in
+the context of nested let expressions (and consequently nested scopes), a
+variable in an inner scope can shadow a variable defined in an outer scope.
+
+If a `variable-ref` references a variable that has not been defined, the
+evaluation of that `variable-ref` will trigger an `undefined-variable` error.
+This error MUST occur when the expression is evaluated and not at compile
+time. This is to enable implementations to define an implementation specific
+mechanism for defining an initial or "global" scope. Implementations are free
+to offer a "strict" compilation mode that a user can opt into, but MUST support
+triggering an `undefined-variable` error only when the `variable-ref` is
+evaluated.
+
+### Examples
+
+Basic examples demonstrating core functionality.
+
+```
+search(let $foo = foo in $foo, {"foo": "bar"}) -> "bar"
+search(let $foo = foo.bar in $foo, {"foo": {"bar": "baz"}}) -> "baz"
+search(let $foo = foo in [$foo, $foo], {"foo": "bar"}) -> ["bar", "bar"]
+```
+
+Nested bindings.
+
+```
+search(
+ let $a = a
+ in
+ b[*].[a, $a, let $a = 'shadow' in $a],
+ {"a": "topval", "b": [{"a": "inner1"}, {"a": "inner2"}]}
+) -> [["inner1", "topval", "shadow"], ["inner2", "topval", "shadow"]]
+```
+
+Errors cases.
+
+```
+search($foo, {}) -> <error: undefined-variable>
+search([let $foo = 'bar' in $foo, $foo], {}) -> <error: undefined-variable>
+```
+
+
+## Rationale
+[rationale]: #rationale
+
+The let expression proposed in this JEP is based off of similar constructs
+in existing programming languages:
+
+
+* Haskell: http://learnyouahaskell.com/syntax-in-functions#let-it-be
+* Clojure: https://clojuredocs.org/clojure.core/let
+* OCaml: https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/expr.html#sss:expr-localdef
+
+It's important to use syntax and semantics that are already familiar to
+developers. We are introducing lexical scoping, which is not a novel
+concept, into the language, so care was taken to be consistent with
+the mental model that developers already have.
+
+
+## Testcases
+[testcases]: #testcases
+
+Basic expressions
+
+```yaml
+# Basic expressions
+- given:
+ foo:
+ bar: baz
+ cases:
+ - expression: "let $foo = foo in $foo"
+ result:
+ bar: baz
+ - expression: "let $foo = foo.bar in $foo"
+ result: "baz"
+ - expression: "let $foo = foo.bar in [$foo, $foo]"
+ result: ["baz", "baz"]
+ - command: "Multiple assignments"
+ expression: "let $foo = 'foo', $bar = 'bar' in [$foo, $bar]"
+ result: ["foo", "bar"]
+# Nested expressions
+- given:
+ a: topval
+ b:
+ - a: inner1
+ - a: inner2
+ cases:
+ - expression: "let $a = a in b[*].[a, $a, let $a = 'shadow' in $a]"
+ result:
+ - ["inner1", "topval", "shadow"]
+ - ["inner2", "topval", "shadow"]
+ - comment: Bindings only visible within expression clause
+ expression: "let $a = 'top-a' in let $a = 'in-a', $b = $a in $b"
+ result: "top-a"
+# Examples from Motivation section
+- given:
+ - home_state: WA
+ states:
+ - name: WA
+ cities: ["Seattle", "Bellevue", "Olympia"]
+ - name: CA
+ cities: ["Los Angeles", "San Francisco"]
+ - name: NY
+ cities: ["New York City", "Albany"]
+ cases:
+ - expression: "[*].[? let $home_state = home_state in name == $home_state].cities"
+ result:
+ - ["Seattle", "Bellevue", "Olympia"]
+ - ["New York City", "Albany"]
+```