This fixes the problem of using the return value of a function as an
element in a compound initializer. The cause of the problem is that
compound initializers were represented by block expressions, but
function calls are contained within block expressions, so def
initialization saw the block expression and thought it was a nested
compound initializer.
Technically, it was a bug in the nested element parsing code in that it
wasn't checking the result value of the block expression, but using a
whole new expression type makes things much cleaner and the work done
paves the way for labeled initializers and compound assignments.
It proved to be too fragile in its current implementation. It broke
pointers to incomplete structs and switch enum checking, and getting it
to work for other things was overly invasive. I still want the encoding,
but need to come up with something more robust.a
Such declarations were being lost, thus in the following, the id field
never got added:
typedef struct qwaq_mevent_s {
int id;
int x, y, z;
int buttons;
} qwaq_mevent_t;
This is where constant folding should have happened all along. While
unary_expr should fold constants too, it seems to already try to do so
and it's a bit much of a mess to clean up right now.
I don't remember what the goal was (stopped working on it eight months
ago), but some possibilities include:
- better handling of nil (have trouble with assigning into struts)
- automatic forward declarations ala C# and jai (I was watching vids
about jai at the time)
- something for pascal
- simply that the default symbol type should not be var (in which case,
goal accomplished)
Currently, they can represent either vectors or quaternions, and the
quaternions can be in either [s, v] form or [w, x, y, z] form.
Many things will not actual work yet as the vector expression needs to be
converted into the appropriate form for assigning the elements to the
components of the "vector" type.
This is a nice feature found in fteqcc (also a bit of a challenge from
Spike). Getting bison to accept the new expression required rewriting the
state expression grammar, so this is mostly for the state expression. A
test to ensure the state expression doesn't break is included.
This goes towards complementing the "if not" logic extension. I need to
check if fteqcc supports "not" with "while" (the version I have access to
at the moment does not), and also whether it would be good to support
"not" with "for", and if so, what form the syntax should take.
It is syntactic sugar for if (!(foo)), but is useful for avoiding
inconsistencies between such things as if (string) and if (!string), even
though qcc can't parse if not (string). It also makes for easier to read
code when the logic in the condition is complex.
