Design overview update part 3: Safety #1328
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
chandlerc
reviewed
Jun 14, 2022
docs/design/README.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
2297
to
2303
| Carbon's clean grammar provides a simple and effective platform for adding | ||
| necessary syntax to annotate more precise semantics. This requires a systematic | ||
| cleanup and simplification of C++'s syntax and grammar, which is inherently a | ||
| backwards incompatible change. Grammar changes are actually among the cheapest | ||
| migrations since they are perfect for tooling and automation. This opens up | ||
| opportunities to provide easy pattern recognition and familiar syntactic anchors | ||
| for humans. It also simplifies compilers, IDEs, and tooling. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More suggested cleanups:
Suggested change
| Carbon's clean grammar provides a simple and effective platform for adding | |
| necessary syntax to annotate more precise semantics. This requires a systematic | |
| cleanup and simplification of C++'s syntax and grammar, which is inherently a | |
| backwards incompatible change. Grammar changes are actually among the cheapest | |
| migrations since they are perfect for tooling and automation. This opens up | |
| opportunities to provide easy pattern recognition and familiar syntactic anchors | |
| for humans. It also simplifies compilers, IDEs, and tooling. | |
| Carbon's clean grammar provides a simple and effective platform for adding more precise semantic annotations to the syntax. However, we designed the synatx to retain as much pattern recognition and familiar syntactic anchors as possible for humans while making the improvements. Beyond allowing easy development of semantic annotations, the simplified synatx also simplifies compilers, IDEs, and tooling for the language. |
Not sure this paragraph carries its weight though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Deleted the paragraph.
docs/design/README.md
Outdated
Comment on lines
2305
to
2309
| Once we have the ability to migrate C++ code to Carbon's simplified grammar, the | ||
| next step is to introduce the building blocks for safety. These are things we | ||
| need to add (relative to C++) without breaking migration. Rust can illustrate | ||
| exactly why we need these specific features, but we need to also have a | ||
| migration story for them. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this isn't saying much beyond what was above and in the bullet points. WDYT?
I'd be fine maybe just removing this paragraph and the previous (even after my edit) if you don't think they're adding much. The more interesting part seems the next two paragraphs.
Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
chandlerc
approved these changes
Jun 14, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Generally LGTM, especially as a good starting point. As discussed when we were talking, good to make sure we're doing a good job of representing the state of interop in the Rust world and the on-going efforts there, but feel free to land and update that paragraph in follow-ups or land with any improvements you get for that paragraph.
josh11b
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
This follows #1274 , #1325 , and #1328 . It fills in the "Bidirectional interoperability with C and C++" section. Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <[email protected]>
chandlerc
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
This follows #1274 and #1325 and fills in the "safety" section. It only covers our approach in general terms. Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
chandlerc
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2022
This follows #1274 , #1325 , and #1328 . It fills in the "Bidirectional interoperability with C and C++" section. Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <[email protected]>
josh11b
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 6, 2022
This follows #1274 , #1325 , #1328 , and #1336 . It fills in the "Names" section. Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
josh11b
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2022
This follows #1274 , #1325 , #1328 , #1336 , #1347 , and #1368 . This fills in details about how values work, value categories, parameter passing, unformed state, and so on. Co-authored-by: Geoff Romer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Richard Smith <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth <[email protected]>
chandlerc
added
the
documentation
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This follows #1274 and #1325 and fills in the "safety" section. It only covers our approach in general terms.