Add support for typed expressions - #54
Merged
Merged
Conversation
- introduce new syntax for 'anonymous' value definitions - accept expressions in CLI commands
rascmatt
force-pushed
the
standalone-expressions
branch
from
January 27, 2026 17:14
0c7e995 to
c8df386
Compare
Jozott00
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2026
Jozott00
left a comment
Jozott00
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is a good way to support the REPL
Closed
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR adresses issue #51
For evaluating expressions, we now accept a typed expression of the following form:
e.g.
Bool: true.or falseThis is a slight syntax extension to support expressions without explicit value names, i.e. as opposed to
x: Bool = true.or falsewhen invoking the SIFL interpreter viaeval(orrepl).Under the hood we parse this to a
ValueDefinition, with a random (uuid) name. This way we don't have to change anything of our current symbols resolving + type checking + interpreter implementation.