When parsing type parameters, an empty type instantiation was parsed as
an IndexExpr with nil Index. This should be considered a breaking change
to parsing: ast.Walk previously assumed that Index was non-nil.
Back out the nil check in ast.Walk, and for now pack an empty argument
list as a non-nil ListExpr with nil Elems.
Alternatives considered:
- Parsing the entire index expression as a BadExpr: this led to
inferior errors while type checking.
- Parsing the Index as a BadExpr: this seems reasonable, but encodes
strictly less information into the AST.
We may want to opt for one of these alternatives in the future, but for
now let's just fix the breaking change.
Change-Id: I93f2b89641692ac014b8ee98bfa031ed3477afb8
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/315851
Trust: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
Trust: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Robert Findley <rfindley@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Go Bot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Robert Griesemer <gri@golang.org>
case *IndexExpr:
Walk(v, n.X)
- // n.Index may be nil for invalid type instantiation expressions, e.g.
- // var x T[].
- if n.Index != nil {
- Walk(v, n.Index)
- }
+ Walk(v, n.Index)
case *SliceExpr:
Walk(v, n.X)
func PackExpr(list []ast.Expr) ast.Expr {
switch len(list) {
- case 0:
- return nil
case 1:
return list[0]
default:
func PackExpr(list []ast.Expr) ast.Expr {
switch len(list) {
case 0:
- return nil
+ // Return an empty ListExpr here, rather than nil, as IndexExpr.Index must
+ // never be nil.
+ // TODO(rFindley) would a BadExpr be more appropriate here?
+ return &ast.ListExpr{}
case 1:
return list[0]
default:
}
func (p *parser) parseTypeInstance(typ ast.Expr) ast.Expr {
+ assert(p.parseTypeParams(), "parseTypeInstance while not parsing type params")
if p.trace {
defer un(trace(p, "TypeInstance"))
}