Implement decompiler on Tasty #4579
Conversation
nicolasstucki
force-pushed
the
tasty-decompiler
branch
16 times, most recently
from
95fb46b to
2204b3b
Compare
nicolasstucki
changed the title
nicolasstucki
force-pushed
the
tasty-decompiler
branch
from
2204b3b to
fd9e7bf
Compare
|
Rebased |
|
Should we remove |
|
The idea is to remove the |
nicolasstucki
force-pushed
the
tasty-decompiler
branch
2 times, most recently
from
e67a67d to
fe9b1a7
Compare
nicolasstucki
force-pushed
the
tasty-decompiler
branch
from
fe9b1a7 to
616afec
Compare
| if (ctx.settings.printTasty.value) { | ||
| new TastyPrinter(unit.pickled.head._2).printContents() | ||
| } else { | ||
| val unit = ctx.compilationUnit |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
unit is no longer accessible in L40, the CI failed because of this.
|
|
||
| case Type.TypeLambda(paramNames, paramBounds, resType) => | ||
| ??? | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems ??? in the above means they should never be reached. Maybe use a "|" pattern to combine them in one case (the variable patterns are not used, can be underscore), and add a note.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I will add a better way to handle unreachable patterns.
| this += lineBreak() | ||
| printCases(cases, lineBreak()) | ||
| } | ||
| this += lineBreak() += "}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we have a test for partial functions?
Another tricky issue is extractors with implicits. Maybe add a TODO to support later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not yet, I will add it later. The idea is to start testing all the files in test/pos and test/run.
|
@liufengyun I fixed the issues from the comments and repeated args. You should review the last 3 commits. |
|
LGTM |
The implementation of the decompiler must:
It does NOT need: