Issue 1287. Allow to invoke function literal.

Issue 1287. Allow to invoke function literal.
http://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=1287


R=zundel@google.com
BUG=
TEST=

Committed: https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/detail?r=3626

[zundel, 2012-01-25 23:15:40]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
File compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java (left):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java:2405: if
(isDeclaration && namePtr[0] == null) {
note that if a type is provided, then a name must be provided - do we need to
add this check back but with a check for type present?

functionExpression:
(returnType? identier)? formalParameterList functionExpres-
sionBody

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
File compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java:2896: return
functionDeclaration;
In the functionDeclartion == null case, I assume the parse is failed and we are
in recovery? Maybe add a comment to this effect, as we don't have a lot of that
in the Parser AFAIK.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/javatests/com/...
File compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java
(right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/javatests/com/...
compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java:504:
}
the test I'm not sure about is:

interface foo { }

main() {
  foo(){};

this would be valid, and foo in this context refers to a new name, not the
earlier defined foo type.
}

[scheglov, 2012-01-26 17:48:37]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
File compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java (left):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java:2405: if
(isDeclaration && namePtr[0] == null) {
On 2012/01/25 23:15:40, zundel wrote:
> note that if a type is provided, then a name must be provided - do we need to
> add this check back but with a check for type present?
> 
> functionExpression:
> (returnType? identier)? formalParameterList functionExpres-
> sionBody

I've restored check for name in parseFunctionDeclaration().

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
File compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/java/com/googl...
compiler/java/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/DartParser.java:2896: return
functionDeclaration;
On 2012/01/25 23:15:40, zundel wrote:
> In the functionDeclartion == null case, I assume the parse is failed and we
are
> in recovery? Maybe add a comment to this effect, as we don't have a lot of
that
> in the Parser AFAIK.

Done.

[zundel, 2012-01-26 18:26:36]

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/javatests/com/...
File compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java
(right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/4/compiler/javatests/com/...
compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java:504:
}
On 2012/01/25 23:15:40, zundel wrote:
> the test I'm not sure about is:
> 
> interface foo { }
> 
> main() {
>   foo(){};
> 
> this would be valid, and foo in this context refers to a new name, not the
> earlier defined foo type.
> }

The confusing thing about the example I gave is that 

  int(){};

would define a method named 'int' with a dynamic return type.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/5001/compiler/javatests/c...
File compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java
(right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/5001/compiler/javatests/c...
compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/parser/NegativeParserTest.java:470:
errEx(ParserErrorCode.MISSING_FUNCTION_NAME, 3, 3, 5));
I think this is actaully legal code.
Section 1.8 of the sepc says that you can specify either the 

name  
  or  
returnType name 
  or 
nothing 

in front of the parameter list.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/5001/compiler/javatests/c...
File compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/type/TypeAnalyzerTest.java
(right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/9288021/diff/5001/compiler/javatests/c...
compiler/javatests/com/google/dart/compiler/type/TypeAnalyzerTest.java:1335:
analyzeFail("{ void f() {}; ({ 'x': f() }); }", TypeErrorCode.VOID);
you could add re-instate the old test but use 'analyze()' instead of
analyzeFail()

[zundel, 2012-01-26 20:02:56]

lgtm

LGTM

Offline discussion clarified where functionExpression and functionSignature is
valid.  For a standalone statement with no selectors,  the grammar seems to
specify that a functionSignature must be used.

Re-instating the old test exposes an unrelated bug which we can address
separately.