It's possible to repeat parameters in method definitions like so:
```ruby
def foo(_a, _a)
end
```
The compiler needs to know to adjust the local table size to account for
these duplicate names. We'll use the repeated parameter flag to account
for the extra stack space required
https://github.com/ruby/prism/commit/b443cb1f60
Co-Authored-By: Kevin Newton <kddnewton@gmail.com>
Co-Authored-By: Jemma Issroff <jemmaissroff@gmail.com>
It's possible to write the following and have it be valid Ruby:
```
defined?("foo"
)
```
But Prism wasn't taking the new line into account. This adds an
`accept1` for a `PM_TOKEN_NEWLINE` to account for this. I've also
updated the fixtures and snapshots to test this.
https://github.com/ruby/prism/commit/b87f8eedc6
Fix https://github.com/ruby/prism/pull/1468
Fix https://github.com/ruby/prism/pull/1575
To decide command-style method calls are allowed, this introduce a new
parameter `accepts_command_call` to `parse_expression` and some
functions.
Although one think this can be solved by operator precedence, it is
hard or impossible, because the precedence of command-style calls is skewed
(e.g. `! bar 1 ` is accepted, but `foo = ! bar 1` is rejected.)
One of the most complex examples is that:
(1) even though `foo = bar = baz 1` and `foo, bar = baz 1` is accepted,
(2) `foo, bar = baz = fuzz 1` is rejected.
To implement this behavior, this introduces a new binding power
`PM_BINDING_POWER_MULTI_ASSIGNMENT` and uses it for distinguish which single
assignments or multi assignments at their RHS.
https://github.com/ruby/prism/commit/d4dd49ca81
Because the lex mode may be freed when popped, we need to store off
this value for dedentation.
https://github.com/ruby/prism/commit/64007322f5
Co-authored-by: Kevin Newton <kddnewton@gmail.com>
Right now, our Call{Operator,And,Or}WriteNode nodes represent two
different concepts:
```ruby
foo.bar += 1
foo[bar] += 1
```
These two statements are different in what they can support. The
former can never have arguments (or an opening_loc or closing_loc).
The former can also never have a block. Also, the former is a
variable method name.
The latter is always going to be []/[]=, it can have any number of
arguments including blocks (`foo[&bar] ||= 1`), and will always
have an opening_loc and closing_loc.
Furthermore, these statements end of having to take different paths
through the various compilers because with the latter you have to
consider the arguments and the block, whereas the former can
perform some additional peephole optimizations since there are
fewer values on the stack.
For these reasons, I'm introducing Index{Operator,And,Or}WriteNode.
These nodes never have a read_name or write_name on them because
they are always []/[]=. They also support blocks, which the previous
write nodes didn't. As a benefit of introducing these nodes, I've
removed the opening_loc, closing_loc, and arguments from the older
write nodes because they will always be null.
For the serialized format, both of these nodes end up being
smaller, and for in-memory we're storing fewer things in general,
so we have savings all around.
I don't love that we are introducing another node that is a call
node since we generally want consumers to only have to handle a
single call, but these nodes are so specific that they would have
to be handled separately anyway since in fact call 2 methods.
https://github.com/ruby/prism/commit/70155db9cd
Kevin Newton
Haldun Bayhantopcu
Max Prokopiev
Adam Hess
TSUYUSATO Kitsune
Aaron Patterson
Hiroshi SHIBATA
eileencodes
Martin Emde
Mike Dalessio