-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Change list expression to tuple expression #1156
Change list expression to tuple expression #1156
Conversation
This has not been discussed, except in a discussion thread on p4lang/p4c#3520, in particular here: p4lang/p4c#3520 (comment) Mihai, is your main concern here with all of the class and method names in p4c, and comments, and perhaps also some documentation about p4c internals, that use the phrase "list" and "list expressions" that would become out of date with the spec if these changes were made? Or do you have concerns independent of that? (I am not claiming that such concerns are unimportant, by any means. I am mainly curious to be clear on the concerns.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We should discuss this in the LDWG.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM! Agree we should vet with the LDWG.
@ChrisDodd @hanw @vgurevich This is "only" a change in terminology in the spec, primarily replacing occurrences of "list expression" with "tuple expression". Just wanted to give you a heads up on this potential change, as it would potentially change terminology that one might want to use in training material and documentation (not an urgent change, but some day), and Mihai also pointed out that the p4c front end IR data structures would still have many occurrences of "list" in the names of some IR node types that would then no longer match the spec terminology, which Mihai is OK with, and would not want to change, because of the disruption that would cause in P4 compiler back ends using the p4c front/mid end. |
LGTM. |
This needs a changelog |
Is there any chance I could convince you to merge this in if you approve of it, under the strict promise that I will add a revision history item as a separate PR after this is merged in? My local git clone is in a state where that would probably be significantly easier for me. |
No description provided.