aa7d7d0cc3
# Description
This grew quite a bit beyond its original scope, but I've tried to make
`$in` a bit more consistent and easier to work with.
Instead of the parser generating calls to `collect` and creating
closures, this adds `Expr::Collect` which just evaluates in the same
scope and doesn't require any closure.
When `$in` is detected in an expression, it is replaced with a new
variable (also called `$in`) and wrapped in `Expr::Collect`. During
eval, this expression is evaluated directly, with the input and with
that new variable set to the collected value.
Other than being faster and less prone to gotchas, it also makes it
possible to typecheck the output of an expression containing `$in`,
which is nice. This is a breaking change though, because of the lack of
the closure and because now typechecking will actually happen. Also, I
haven't attempted to typecheck the input yet.
The IR generated now just looks like this:
```gas
collect %in
clone %tmp, %in
store-variable $in, %tmp
# %out <- ...expression... <- %in
drop-variable $in
```
(where `$in` is the local variable created for this collection, and not
`IN_VARIABLE_ID`)
which is a lot better than having to create a closure and call `collect
--keep-env`, dealing with all of the capture gathering and allocation
that entails. Ideally we can also detect whether that input is actually
needed, so maybe we don't have to clone, but I haven't tried to do that
yet. Theoretically now that the variable is a unique one every time, it
should be possible to give it a type - I just don't know how to
determine that yet.
On top of that, I've also reworked how `$in` works in pipeline-initial
position. Previously, it was a little bit inconsistent. For example,
this worked:
```nushell
> 3 | do { let x = $in; let y = $in; print $x $y }
3
3
```
However, this causes a runtime variable not found error on the second
`$in`:
```nushell
> def foo [] { let x = $in; let y = $in; print $x $y }; 3 | foo
Error: nu:🐚:variable_not_found
× Variable not found
╭─[entry #115:1:35]
1 │ def foo [] { let x = $in; let y = $in; print $x $y }; 3 | foo
· ─┬─
· ╰── variable not found
╰────
```
I've fixed this by making the first element `$in` detection *always*
happen at the block level, so if you use `$in` in pipeline-initial
position anywhere in a block, it will collect with an implicit
subexpression around the whole thing, and you can then use that `$in`
more than once. In doing this I also rewrote `parse_pipeline()` and
hopefully it's a bit more straightforward and possibly more efficient
too now.
Finally, I've tried to make `let` and `mut` a lot more straightforward
with how they handle the rest of the pipeline, and using a redirection
with `let`/`mut` now does what you'd expect if you assume that they
consume the whole pipeline - the redirection is just processed as
normal. These both work now:
```nushell
let x = ^foo err> err.txt
let y = ^foo out+err>| str length
```
It was previously possible to accomplish this with a subexpression, but
it just seemed like a weird gotcha that you couldn't do it. Intuitively,
`let` and `mut` just seem to take the whole line.
- closes #13137
# User-Facing Changes
- `$in` will behave more consistently with blocks and closures, since
the entire block is now just wrapped to handle it if it appears in the
first pipeline element
- `$in` no longer creates a closure, so what can be done within an
expression containing `$in` is less restrictive
- `$in` containing expressions are now type checked, rather than just
resulting in `any`. However, `$in` itself is still `any`, so this isn't
quite perfect yet
- Redirections are now allowed in `let` and `mut` and behave pretty much
how you'd expect
# Tests + Formatting
Added tests to cover the new behaviour.
# After Submitting
- [ ] release notes (definitely breaking change)
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| fuzz | ||
| src | ||
| tests | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| README.md | ||
nu-parser, the Nushell parser
Nushell's parser is a type-directed parser, meaning that the parser will use type information available during parse time to configure the parser. This allows it to handle a broader range of techniques to handle the arguments of a command.
Nushell's base language is whitespace-separated tokens with the command (Nushell's term for a function) name in the head position:
head1 arg1 arg2 | head2
Lexing
The first job of the parser is to a lexical analysis to find where the tokens start and end in the input. This turns the above into:
<item: "head1">, <item: "arg1">, <item: "arg2">, <pipe>, <item: "head2">
At this point, the parser has little to no understanding of the shape of the command or how to parse its arguments.
Lite parsing
As Nushell is a language of pipelines, pipes form a key role in both separating commands from each other as well as denoting the flow of information between commands. The lite parse phase, as the name suggests, helps to group the lexed tokens into units.
The above tokens are converted the following during the lite parse phase:
Pipeline:
Command #1:
<item: "head1">, <item: "arg1">, <item: "arg2">
Command #2:
<item: "head2">
Parsing
The real magic begins to happen when the parse moves on to the parsing stage. At this point, it traverses the lite parse tree and for each command makes a decision:
- If the command looks like an internal/external command literal: e.g.
fooor/usr/bin/ls, it parses it as an internal or external command - Otherwise, it parses the command as part of a mathematical expression
Types/shapes
Each command has a shape assigned to each of the arguments it reads in. These shapes help define how the parser will handle the parse.
For example, if the command is written as:
where $x > 10
When the parsing happens, the parser will look up the where command and find its Signature. The Signature states what flags are allowed and what positional arguments are allowed (both required and optional). Each argument comes with a Shape that defines how to parse values to get that position.
In the above example, if the Signature of where said that it took three String values, the result would be:
CallInfo:
Name: `where`
Args:
Expression($x), a String
Expression(>), a String
Expression(10), a String
Or, the Signature could state that it takes in three positional arguments: a Variable, an Operator, and a Number, which would give:
CallInfo:
Name: `where`
Args:
Expression($x), a Variable
Expression(>), an Operator
Expression(10), a Number
Note that in this case, each would be checked at compile time to confirm that the expression has the shape requested. For example, "foo" would fail to parse as a Number.
Finally, some Shapes can consume more than one token. In the above, if the where command stated it took in a single required argument, and that the Shape of this argument was a MathExpression, then the parser would treat the remaining tokens as part of the math expression.
CallInfo:
Name: `where`
Args:
MathExpression:
Op: >
LHS: Expression($x)
RHS: Expression(10)
When the command runs, it will now be able to evaluate the whole math expression as a single step rather than doing any additional parsing to understand the relationship between the parameters.
Making space
As some Shapes can consume multiple tokens, it's important that the parser allow for multiple Shapes to coexist as peacefully as possible.
The simplest way it does this is to ensure there is at least one token for each required parameter. If the Signature of the command says that it takes a MathExpression and a Number as two required arguments, then the parser will stop the math parser one token short. This allows the second Shape to consume the final token.
Another way that the parser makes space is to look for Keyword shapes in the Signature. A Keyword is a word that's special to this command. For example in the if command, else is a keyword. When it is found in the arguments, the parser will use it as a signpost for where to make space for each Shape. The tokens leading up to the else will then feed into the parts of the Signature before the else, and the tokens following are consumed by the else and the Shapes that follow.