The current implementation of comprehension inlining is a pile of special cases that is quite difficult to understand and debug. The root cause of this is that it attempts to flatten the inlined scope into the enclosing scope in the symbol table, to avoid the compiler needing to generally understand the concept of inlined sub-scopes, but this flattening loses information and requires a number of special cases. And then the compiler implementation of inlining modifies the flattened scope as it traverses the inlined comprehension(s) in order to ensure correct handling of the names within the inlined sub-scope; ideally the compiler would not modify the symbol table as it generates code.
A better implementation would leave the scopes separate in the symbol table, losing no information but just marking the comprehension scope as an inlined sub-scope, and then add explicit support for inlined sub-scopes in the compiler (with appropriate query methods in the symtable.)
Linked PRs
Reactions are currently unavailable
The current implementation of comprehension inlining is a pile of special cases that is quite difficult to understand and debug. The root cause of this is that it attempts to flatten the inlined scope into the enclosing scope in the symbol table, to avoid the compiler needing to generally understand the concept of inlined sub-scopes, but this flattening loses information and requires a number of special cases. And then the compiler implementation of inlining modifies the flattened scope as it traverses the inlined comprehension(s) in order to ensure correct handling of the names within the inlined sub-scope; ideally the compiler would not modify the symbol table as it generates code.
A better implementation would leave the scopes separate in the symbol table, losing no information but just marking the comprehension scope as an inlined sub-scope, and then add explicit support for inlined sub-scopes in the compiler (with appropriate query methods in the symtable.)
Linked PRs