Re: [PATCH olang 2/5] checker: scope: populate symbol's type

[Johnny Richard <johnny@johnnyrichard.com>]

On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 09:23:28PM GMT, Carlos Maniero wrote:
> On Sat Sep 21, 2024 at 3:47 PM -03, Johnny Richard wrote:
> > I also agree.  I would change a little bit here and make the checker
> > calculate the size in bytes and add it to the symbol.
> 
> > Let's include the size in bytes for the symbol. I believe this will
> > enhance our symbol and make it easier to verify in the next steps
> 
> I originally did this way because we may have types that has
> platform-dependent sizes such as *pointers*.
> 
> But we could address that later than.

Looks good to me.  We are going to understand better when we need them.

> > Could you please enlighten the motivation behind setting extra data to
> > types on AST nodes?
> 
> I don't know if you have anything different in mind, but the alternative
> I see is to be to create a type representation for the AST and another
> for the scope, which I also think it is fine.

I think this is a good idea, probably they might hold different info for
different proposes.

> But since I was using the same representation, I opted to first fulfil
> the *type_t* on the AST and after to use the same information on the
> scope, so it is consistent and you can trust in both informations, the
> AST and the scope.
> 
> I will change the AST to store the type as *string_view* and keep the
> *type_t* on the symbol only. WDYT?

I am super okay with that.

> > I don't see other kinds in the future.  What do you think about adding a
> > boolean property named "is_primitive"?
> 
> Pointers can be a type kind.

what happens to a primitive pointer? which kind it would be?