Repository navigation
Raw handle macros for field projection experiments - #164627
dingxiangfei2009 wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
4cdb718 to
d5bad9f
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
| /// A `raw_handle` expression (e.g. `builtin # raw_handle(expr)`). | ||
| RawHandle(Box<Expr>), | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(a bit of context for Oli)
we disussed this PR in a meeting yesterday and I suggested we use a more concrete PlaceExpr type in the hir. Ding then argued that it would already make sense to do that in the ast, which I agree with. since that would be a bigger refactor, we figured we would just create the PR and then Ding (or Rasmus) change the ast to already use PlaceExpr in a few days when they find the time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right. Yea I think it should def have more precise types here so you can only represent actually legal syntax.
It does mean you'll have to extend the visitors a bit, but it may suffice to just handle it in the walk functions without adding new visitor functions
Co-authored-by: Xiangfei Ding <dingxiangfei2009protonmail.ch> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Piorr <piorr@google.com>
d5bad9f to
a0c239f
Compare
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #164673) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts by rebasing. |
🐉 Highly experimental field projection primitive
raw_handle!r? @oli-obk
cc @ShaddyDC
cc @ojeda
cc @BennoLossin
We would like to submit this patch to start the experiment with the
LocalHandleandPlaceHandle. We intend to continue polishing it in a patch series following this initial patch.We know that the following items are not working.