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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Comment why unit-erasure is needed in MiniRust #463

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 21, 2024
Merged

Comment why unit-erasure is needed in MiniRust #463

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 5 additions & 1 deletion lib/PrintMiniRust.ml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -237,7 +237,11 @@ and print_expression_with_block env (e: expr): document =
and print_statements env (e: expr): document =
match e with
| Let ({ typ = Unit; _ }, Unit, e2) ->
(* Special-case: if we have a unit (probably due to an erased node), we omit it *)
(* Special-case: if we have a unit (probably due to an erased node), we omit it.
Note, there already is a similar pass (Simplify.let_to_sequence) operating
on Ast, however, the Ast to MiniRust translation reintroduces unit statements,
e.g., when erasing push/pop_frame or free nodes. We thus need an additional
handling here *)
print_statements (push env (`GoneUnit)) e2
| Let ({ typ = Unit; _ }, e1, e2) ->
print_expr env max_int e1 ^^ semi ^^ hardline ^^
Expand Down
Loading