feat: Support rest params in function calls

[mattjohnsonpint]

Fixes#377
Fixes#2291

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Implement support for rest parameters when calling functions or constructors.

Note, does not yet support rest arguments, as the spread operator and iterators would need to be implemented first.

ie. this now works:

functionfoo<T>(...args: T[]): void{}foo(1,2,3,4,5);

but this does not (yet):

constnums=[1,2,3,4,5];foo(...nums);

Behavior

Fundamentally,

functionfoo<T>(...args: T[]): void{}foo(1,2,3);

is equivalent to:

functionfoo<T>(args: T[]=[]): void{}foo([1,2,3]);

The only difference is that the caller does not construct the array - but the array still exists in the function scope.

• I've read the contributing guidelines
• I've added my name and email to the NOTICE file

[MaxGraey]

There is also another very specific case when arguments are processed not in a loop:

functionfixedArgs(...args: i32[]): i32{returnargs[0]+args[1];}fixedArgs(1,2);// ok

But this is become undefined behavior for such cases:

fixedArgs(1);fixedArgs(1,2,3);

TypeScript does not generate an error in this case, but we must anticipate this option and reject all options except those with two arguments to the call site and preferably during compile time

[CountBleck]

@MaxGraey that kind of checking would probably be a TODO, since I don't believe the compiler in its current state has a way to note metadata like that on functions. Maybe that would be set aside for a separate pass, in combination with a custom IR (or something that could detect things like const aaarghs = args)?

In any case, the heuristic wouldn't work as soon as someFunction(args) is in the function (someFunction could mutate the array).

[mattjohnsonpint]

... TypeScript does not generate an error in this case

It doesn't generate an error for fixedArgs(1), because args[1] is undefined, and 1 + undefined === NaN, so it returns NaN. But your other example fixedArgs(1, 2, 3) should be valid in both TS and AS. There's no requirement that all args passed are used.

... but we must anticipate this option and reject all options except those with two arguments to the call site and preferably during compile time

Why? I don't think we do that type of analysis for anything similar such as passing arrays.

IMHO function fixedArgs(...args: i32[]): i32 and function fixedArgs(args: i32[]=[]): i32 should be identical in how the args are treated within the function. It's only the caller that changes syntax.

[MaxGraey]

Why I'm concerned about the implementation via a dynamic array. Many math methods such as Math.min, Math.max, Math.hypot as well as Array#push, Array#concat and many others require this feature. If every time there will be created an implicit array even for one argument, it will significantly affect the performance and also significantly increase memory pressure.

[mattjohnsonpint]

... it will significantly affect the performance and also significantly increase memory pressure.

Those are valid concerns indeed. I'm open to suggestions.

Would it help if the array were @unmanaged ?

[mattjohnsonpint]

Would it help if the array were @unmanaged ?

though it couldn't be implemented as easily as this:

@unmanagedclassUnmanagedArray<T>extendsArray<T>{}

... because: ERROR AS207: Unmanaged classes cannot extend managed classes and vice-versa.

Another thought. Does AssemblyScript have any concept (internal or otherwise) similar to stackalloc in C# (or Go's implicit stack allocations, etc.)?

[mattjohnsonpint]

Also, I'm thinking about your concern with Math.max, etc. In typescript, both rest params and rest args are supported, so you can do something like this:

functionmaxNum(str: string): number{constarr=str.split(' ').map(s=>parseInt(s))returnMath.max(...arr)}console.log(maxNum("10 3 40 1 2"))// 40console.log(maxNum("100 200 300"))// 300console.log(maxNum(someArbitraryStringFromUserInput))

While this PR doesn't implement rest args, I presumed that we'd want to do that eventually.

Since in this example, the array size cannot be known at compile time, I'm really not sure how one could implement Math.max that would allow this, without using a dynamically sized array.

[MaxGraey]

Well, you will definitely need to separate the static and dynamic case for rest parameters. Perhaps it would be a good option to leave everything as it is and in the future add a special optimizing pass or conditional optimization for the case when all the arguments are known at compile time and not to use an array for this case but to use shadow stack or static data segments

[mattjohnsonpint]

Well, you will definitely need to separate the static and dynamic case for rest parameters. Perhaps it would be a good option to leave everything as it is and in the future add a special optimizing pass or conditional optimization for the case when all the arguments are known at compile time and not to use an array for this case but to use shadow stack or static data segments

That sounds reasonable. I could also see an approach similar to generics, where the compiler makes internal representations of the function signature with fixed sizes to be used by those callers. ie, Math.max$2(p0, p1), Math.max$3(p0, p1, p2), etc.

So then, for now - you good with this PR as is?

[HerrCai0907]

LGTM

[CountBleck]

Okay, I just tested it myself as a sanity check, and everything looks good...I'll merge it now!