- Processes:
- Grammar contains inject and drop. Both produce processes from names. Inject is not implemented in the compiler.
- Top level production: In the spec only a contract declaration may be at the top level, but in the grammar any non-par process may be at the top level, and with braces, any process may be at the top level.
- Pattern binding: In grammar, each bind may have its own conditional. In spec, there is a single conditional associated with all the binds.
- Select branches may include a conditional in the grammar. In the spec, they may not.
- Foldl and FoldR aren't in the spec
- Print is also missing from the spec.
- Semantics for sending more than one process? It's in both grammars.
- For channels, grammar currently only supports quoted process and variables. No other channels supported in grammar.
- Quantities: Grammar supports richer group of quantities. Map(), Double, String, are not in spec.
- In grammar quantities also support arithmetic. This suggests we'll want typing rules and checking for the expressions.
- Grammar supports field access via dot. I've seen this used in example contracts, but it's not in the spec
- Variables:
- In the 0.1 spec all variables hold names. Quantities are values. This would suggest that adding two variables should look like *x + *y. That won't even compile. What actually happens is that variables that hold names quoting quantity processes are implicitly *'ed, and cannot be explicitly starred because of the syntax.
- Entities: Most of the entity types in the spec are commented out in the grammar. Only characters and tuples are left. It's not obvious why a string is a quantity and a char is an entity.
- Patterns:
- Val pattern in grammar allows matching of structs, but entity grammar prevents construction of structs.
- No Array or struct pattern in grammar.
- Inject present again.
- For process patterns, grammar allows new, and contract construction.
Continuation Saturated Form
This is mentioned in the spec. De-sugared Rholang in CSF might be a good form for optimizations.
Do we want to fold par applications down to a list
Compiler Questions:
theCtxtVar is a no-arg function that generates a fresh name every time. It seems based on the combine method that this wasn't intended.