Allow [mutating] methods on existential values (#2245)

The problematic case is when an `interface` has a `[mutating]` method:

    interface ICounter
    {
        [mutating] void increment();
    }

and code tries to invoke that method on a value of existential type:

    ICounter c = ...;
    c.increment();

We know that the existential value `c` is conceptually a tuple of:

* A concrete type `X`
* A witness that `X : ICounter`
* A value `v` of type `X`

We simply want to invoke `increment()` on the `v` part, using the `X : ICounter` witness table.
The catch that the compiler faces is that the variable `c` is mutable, so we need to be careful that we "snapshot" its value (the tuple `X, X:ICounter, v`) at a single point.
The snapshotting behavior is important when invoking a method that involves `This` or associated types in its signature, so we cannot get rid of it.

The snapshotting we do relies on the idea of a `LetExpr` AST node, which cannot be written in the input syntax.
A `LetExpr` introduces a variable binding (with an initial-value expression) and then evaluates a body expression in the context of that binding.
For a call site like `c.increment()` the front-end makes an intermediate copy of `c` and then "opens" that immutable value to get at the elements of the tuple `X`, `X : ICounter`, `v`.
The resulting AST after checking looks something like:

    ICounter c = ...;
    (let tmp = c in extractExistentialValue(tmp)).increment();

In that form it is more clear why the attempt to call `increment()` fails:

1. The binding `tmp` sure looks immutable
2. There is no logic in the compiler to make `extractExistentialValue(x)` be an l-value if `x` is
3. There is seemingly no logic to write back from `tmp` to `c` when the operation completes

Let us walk through those problems in order.

Item (1) turns out to be a bit of a non-issue.
Despite the way that I've written out `let` expressions above, the logic in `moveTemp()` in the compiler actually introduces a *mutable* binding.

Item (2) can be fixed for the purposes of semantic checking by modifying `openExistential()`.
Simplistically, we make the overall expression be an l-value if the operand is.

Item (3) is handled at the level of AST->IR lowering. Each kind of expression that can form an l-value needs to have a way to represent the "location" of that l-value in the `LoweredValInfo` type.
This change adds a case to handle the `extractExistentialVal` operation, by tracking both the extract value (of concrete type) and the underlying l-value (of existential type).

Where all of this comes crashing against reality a bit is that the scoping I've drawn for the `let` expressions above kind of doesn't work once we look at types.
The basic problem is that the *type* of the `(let tmp = c in ...)` expression is the concrete type `X` that was extracted from the existential.
That type can conceptually be written as `ExtractExistentialType(tmp)` which, notably, references `tmp`.
That means that we end up with AST expression nodes that reference the variable `tmp` *outside* of its scope.
Furthermore, those references to `tmp` can end up being lowered to IR *before* we have lowered the `let ...` expression itself.

Fixing the scoping issue turns out to be a major undertaking.
The first (and more obvious) issue is needing to address the scoping problem.
The solution I implemented includes a bit of refactoring to make all the `SemanticsVisitor` types better able to pass around the contextual scope-dependent state that might be needed during semantic checking, but really only adds a single piece of state.

The semantic-checking state used for checking expressions is bottlenecked so that there will (or at least *should*) always be an explicit representation of a "scope" that surrounds a complete expression (as opposed to a sub-expression).
When a `LetExpr` needs to be introduced, it is added to a pending list on the active scope, rather than being added locally.
Once the complete expression is checked, the resulting expression is wrapped up in the pending `LetExpr`s so that their scope is as broad as possible.

Technically this solution doesn't cover all cases. For example:

    interface ICell { associatedtype Content; Content getContent(); }
    ...
    ICell cell = ...;
    let content = cell.getContent();

In this case the type of `content` refers to the binding introduced by a `LetExpr` in the initial-value expression.
I am leaving such issues as a piece of future work, in the hopes that we can get at least a partial fix for the problem in place.
A future fix probably nees to extend the scoping even wider (e.g., by unwrapping the `LetExpr`s from the initial-value expression and turning them into distinct temporaries).

The second piece of the fix is that we need a way for the modified value of the extracted existential to be "written back" to the original location.

Well...

We are actually being a little slippery here, based on some logic in the compiler codebase that I guess Just Works.
When AST->IR lowering encounters a `LetExpr` that binds an l-value to a name, it actually ends up binding that name more or less as a *reference* to that l-value.
At this point the `let`-ness of `LetExpr` is very much in doubt: the binding can be mutable, and it can even be an *alias* of some location?!?

In any case, the result is that the AST->IR codegen logic implicitly handles the "write-back" because the `let`-bound temporary is actually an alias for the original location.
A more complete future fix might need to introduce a distinct case in `LoweredValInfo` to handle the case of copy of a mutable temporary.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions