Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 8, 2022

Conversation

jafingerhut
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@jafingerhut
Copy link
Collaborator Author

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also some documentation about p4c internals, that use the phrase "list" and "list expressions" that would become out of date with the spec if these changes were made?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.)

Copy link
Contributor

@mihaibudiu mihaibudiu left a 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.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jnfoster jnfoster left a 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.

@jafingerhut
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@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.

@jfingerh jfingerh mentioned this pull request Oct 17, 2022
@hanw
Copy link
Contributor

hanw commented Oct 25, 2022

LGTM.

@mihaibudiu
Copy link
Contributor

This needs a changelog

@jfingerh
Copy link
Contributor

jfingerh commented Nov 8, 2022

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants