		       The Internals of the Mono C# Compiler
	
				Miguel de Icaza
			      (miguel@ximian.com)
			       2002, 2007, 2009

* Abstract

	The Mono C# compiler is a C# compiler written in C# itself.
	Its goals are to provide a free and alternate implementation
	of the C# language.  The Mono C# compiler generates ECMA CIL
	images through the use of the System.Reflection.Emit API which
	enable the compiler to be platform independent.
	
* Overview: How the compiler fits together

	The compilation process is managed by the compiler driver (it
	lives in driver.cs).

	The compiler reads a set of C# source code files, and parses
	them.  Any assemblies or modules that the user might want to
	use with his project are loaded after parsing is done.

	Once all the files have been parsed, the type hierarchy is
	resolved.  First interfaces are resolved, then types and
	enumerations.

	Once the type hierarchy is resolved, every type is populated:
	fields, methods, indexers, properties, events and delegates
	are entered into the type system.  

	At this point the program skeleton has been completed.  The
	next process is to actually emit the code for each of the
	executable methods.  The compiler drives this from
	RootContext.EmitCode.

	Each type then has to populate its methods: populating a
	method requires creating a structure that is used as the state
	of the block being emitted (this is the EmitContext class) and
	then generating code for the topmost statement (the Block).

	Code generation has two steps: the first step is the semantic
	analysis (Resolve method) that resolves any pending tasks, and
	guarantees that the code is correct.  The second phase is the
	actual code emission.  All errors are flagged during in the
	"Resolution" process. 

	After all code has been emitted, then the compiler closes all
	the types (this basically tells the Reflection.Emit library to
	finish up the types), resources, and definition of the entry
	point are done at this point, and the output is saved to
	disk. 

	The following list will give you an idea of where the
	different pieces of the compiler live:

	Infrastructure:

	    driver.cs:
		This drives the compilation process: loading of
		command line options; parsing the inputs files;
		loading the referenced assemblies; resolving the type
		hierarchy and emitting the code. 

	    codegen.cs:
		
		The state tracking for code generation. 

	    attribute.cs:

		Code to do semantic analysis and emit the attributes
		is here.

	    rootcontext.cs:

		Keeps track of the types defined in the source code,
		as well as the assemblies loaded.  

	    typemanager.cs:

	  	This contains the MCS type system.

	    report.cs:

		Error and warning reporting methods.

	    support.cs:

		Assorted utility functions used by the compiler.
		
	Parsing

	    cs-tokenizer.cs:

		The tokenizer for the C# language, it includes also
		the C# pre-processor.

	    cs-parser.jay, cs-parser.cs:

		The parser is implemented using a C# port of the Yacc
		parser.  The parser lives in the cs-parser.jay file,
		and cs-parser.cs is the generated parser.

	    location.cs:

		The `location' structure is a compact representation
		of a file, line, column where a token, or a high-level
		construct appears.  This is used to report errors.

	Expressions:
	  
	    ecore.cs
	
		Basic expression classes, and interfaces most shared
		code and static methods are here.

	    expression.cs:

		Most of the different kinds of expressions classes
		live in this file.

	    assign.cs:

		The assignment expression got its own file.

	    constant.cs:

		The classes that represent the constant expressions.

	    literal.cs
		
		Literals are constants that have been entered manually
		in the source code, like `1' or `true'.  The compiler
		needs to tell constants from literals apart during the
		compilation process, as literals sometimes have some
		implicit extra conversions defined for them. 

	    cfold.cs:

		The constant folder for binary expressions.

	Statements

	    statement.cs:

		All of the abstract syntax tree elements for
		statements live in this file.  This also drives the
		semantic analysis process.

	    iterators.cs:

	 	Contains the support for implementing iterators from
		the C# 2.0 specification.

	Declarations, Classes, Structs, Enumerations

	    decl.cs

		This contains the base class for Members and
		Declaration Spaces.   A declaration space introduces
		new names in types, so classes, structs, delegates and
		enumerations derive from it.

	    class.cs:
		
		Methods for holding and defining class and struct
		information, and every member that can be in these
		(methods, fields, delegates, events, etc).

		The most interesting type here is the `TypeContainer'
		which is a derivative of the `DeclSpace' 

	    delegate.cs:

		Handles delegate definition and use. 

	    enum.cs:

		Handles enumerations.

	    interface.cs:

		Holds and defines interfaces.  All the code related to
		interface declaration lives here.

	    parameter.cs:

		During the parsing process, the compiler encapsulates
		parameters in the Parameter and Parameters classes.
		These classes provide definition and resolution tools
		for them.

	    pending.cs:

		Routines to track pending implementations of abstract
		methods and interfaces.  These are used by the
		TypeContainer-derived classes to track whether every
		method required is implemented.

	
* The parsing process

	All the input files that make up a program need to be read in
	advance, because C# allows declarations to happen after an
	entity is used, for example, the following is a valid program:

	class X : Y {
		static void Main ()
		{
			a = "hello"; b = "world";
		}
		string a;
	}
	
	class Y {
		public string b;
	}

	At the time the assignment expression `a = "hello"' is parsed,
	it is not know whether a is a class field from this class, or
	its parents, or whether it is a property access or a variable
	reference.  The actual meaning of `a' will not be discovered
	until the semantic analysis phase.

** The Tokenizer and the pre-processor

	The tokenizer is contained in the file `cs-tokenizer.cs', and
	the main entry point is the `token ()' method.  The tokenizer
	implements the `yyParser.yyInput' interface, which is what the
	Yacc/Jay parser will use when fetching tokens.  

	Token definitions are generated by jay during the compilation
	process, and those can be references from the tokenizer class
	with the `Token.' prefix. 

	Each time a token is returned, the location for the token is
	recorded into the `Location' property, that can be accessed by
	the parser.  The parser retrieves the Location properties as
	it builds its internal representation to allow the semantic
	analysis phase to produce error messages that can pin point
	the location of the problem. 

	Some tokens have values associated with it, for example when
	the tokenizer encounters a string, it will return a
	LITERAL_STRING token, and the actual string parsed will be
	available in the `Value' property of the tokenizer.   The same
	mechanism is used to return integers and floating point
	numbers. 

	C# has a limited pre-processor that allows conditional
	compilation, but it is not as fully featured as the C
	pre-processor, and most notably, macros are missing.  This
	makes it simple to implement in very few lines and mesh it
	with the tokenizer.

	The `handle_preprocessing_directive' method in the tokenizer
	handles all the pre-processing, and it is invoked when the '#'
	symbol is found as the first token in a line.  

	The state of the pre-processor is contained in a Stack called
	`ifstack', this state is used to track the if/elif/else/endif
	nesting and the current state.  The state is encoded in the
	top of the stack as a number of values `TAKING',
	`TAKEN_BEFORE', `ELSE_SEEN', `PARENT_TAKING'.

** Locations

	Locations are encoded as a 32-bit number (the Location
	struct) that map each input source line to a linear number.
	As new files are parsed, the Location manager is informed of
	the new file, to allow it to map back from an int constant to
	a file + line number.

	Prior to parsing/tokenizing any source files, the compiler
	generates a list of all the source files and then reserves the
	low N bits of the location to hold the source file, where N is
	large enough to hold at least twice as many source files as were
	specified on the command line (to allow for a #line in each file).
	The upper 32-N bits are the line number in that file.

	The token 0 is reserved for ``anonymous'' locations, ie. if we
	don't know the location (Location.Null).

	The tokenizer also tracks the column number for a token, but
	this is currently not being used or encoded.  It could
	probably be encoded in the low 9 bits, allowing for columns
	from 1 to 512 to be encoded.

* The Parser

	The parser is written using Jay, which is a port of Berkeley
	Yacc to Java, that I later ported to C#. 

	Many people ask why the grammar of the parser does not match
	exactly the definition in the C# specification.  The reason is
	simple: the grammar in the C# specification is designed to be
	consumed by humans, and not by a computer program.  Before
	you can feed this grammar to a tool, it needs to be simplified
	to allow the tool to generate a correct parser for it. 

	In the Mono C# compiler, we use a class for each of the
	statements and expressions in the C# language.  For example,
	there is a `While' class for the the `while' statement, a
	`Cast' class to represent a cast expression and so on.

	There is a Statement class, and an Expression class which are
	the base classes for statements and expressions. 

** Namespaces
	
	Using list.

* Internal Representation

** Expressions

	Expressions in the Mono C# compiler are represented by the
	`Expression' class.  This is an abstract class that particular
	kinds of expressions have to inherit from and override a few
	methods.

	The base Expression class contains two fields: `eclass' which
	represents the "expression classification" (from the C#
	specs) and the type of the expression.

	During parsing, the compiler will create the various trees of
	expressions.  These expressions have to be resolved before they
	are can be used.    The semantic analysis is implemented by
	resolving each of the expressions created during parsing and
	creating fully resolved expressions.

	A common pattern that you will notice in the compiler is this:

		  Expression expr;
		  ...
	
		  expr = expr.Resolve (ec);
		  if (expr == null)
		     	// There was an error, stop processing by returning

	The resolution process is implemented by overriding the
	`DoResolve' method.  The DoResolve method has to set the `eclass'
	field and the `type', perform all error checking and computations
	that will be required for code generation at this stage.

	The return value from DoResolve is an expression.  Most of the
	time an Expression derived class will return itself (return
	this) when it will handle the emission of the code itself, or
	it can return a new Expression.

	For example, the parser will create an "ElementAccess" class
	for:

		a [0] = 1;

	During the resolution process, the compiler will know whether
	this is an array access, or an indexer access.  And will
	return either an ArrayAccess expression or an IndexerAccess
	expression from DoResolve.

	All errors must be reported during the resolution phase
	(DoResolve) and if an error is detected the DoResolve method
	will return null which is used to flag that an error condition
	has occurred, this will be used to stop compilation later on.
	This means that anyone that calls Expression.Resolve must
	check the return value for null which would indicate an error
	condition.

	The second stage that Expressions participate in is code
	generation, this is done by overwriting the "Emit" method of
	the Expression class.  No error checking must be performed
	during this stage.

	We take advantage of the distinction between the expressions that
	are generated by the parser and the expressions that are the
	result of the semantic analysis phase for lambda expressions (more
	information in the "Lambda Expressions" section).

	But what is important is that expressions and statements that are
	generated by the parser should implement the cloning
	functionality.  This is used lambda expressions require the
	compiler to attempt to resolve a given block of code with
	different possible types for parameters that have their types
	implicitly inferred. 

** Simple Names, MemberAccess

	One of the most important classes in the compiler is
	"SimpleName" which represents a simple name (from the C#
	specification).  The names during the resolution time are
	bound to field names, parameter names or local variable names.

	More complicated expressions like:

		Math.Sin

	Are composed using the MemberAccess class which contains a
	name (Math) and a SimpleName (Sin), this helps driving the
	resolution process.

** Types

	The parser creates expressions to represent types during
	compilation.  For example:

	   class Sample {

		Version vers;

	   }


	That will produce a "SimpleName" expression for the "Version"
	word.  And in this particular case, the parser will introduce
	"Version vers" as a field declaration.

	During the resolution process for the fields, the compiler
	will have to resolve the word "Version" to a type.  This is
	done by using the "ResolveAsType" method in Expression instead
	of using "Resolve".

	ResolveAsType just turns on a different set of code paths for
	things like SimpleNames and does a different kind of error
	checking than the one used by regular expressions. 

** Constants

	Constants in the Mono C# compiler are represented by the
	abstract class `Constant'.  Constant is in turn derived from
	Expression.  The base constructor for `Constant' just sets the
	expression class to be an `ExprClass.Value', Constants are
	born in a fully resolved state, so the `DoResolve' method
	only returns a reference to itself.

	Each Constant should implement the `GetValue' method which
	returns an object with the actual contents of this constant, a
	utility virtual method called `AsString' is used to render a
	diagnostic message.  The output of AsString is shown to the
	developer when an error or a warning is triggered.

	Constant classes also participate in the constant folding
	process.  Constant folding is invoked by those expressions
	that can be constant folded invoking the functionality
	provided by the ConstantFold class (cfold.cs).   

	Each Constant has to implement a number of methods to convert
	itself into a Constant of a different type.  These methods are
	called `ConvertToXXXX' and they are invoked by the wrapper
	functions `ToXXXX'.  These methods only perform implicit
	numeric conversions.  Explicit conversions are handled by the
	`Cast' expression class.

	The `ToXXXX' methods are the entry point, and provide error
	reporting in case a conversion can not be performed.

** Constant Folding

	The C# language requires constant folding to be implemented.
	Constant folding is hooked up in the Binary.Resolve method.
	If both sides of a binary expression are constants, then the
	ConstantFold.BinaryFold routine is invoked.  

	This routine implements all the binary operator rules, it
	is a mirror of the code that generates code for binary
	operators, but that has to be evaluated at runtime.

	If the constants can be folded, then a new constant expression
	is returned, if not, then the null value is returned (for
	example, the concatenation of a string constant and a numeric
	constant is deferred to the runtime). 

** Side effects

	a [i++]++ 
	a [i++] += 5;

** Statements

*** Invariant meaning in a block

	The seemingly small section in the standard entitled
	"invariant meaning in a block" has several subtleties
	involved, especially when we try to implement the semantics
	efficiently.

	Most of the semantics are trivial, and basically prevent local
	variables from shadowing parameters and other local variables.
	However, this notion is not limited to that, but affects all
	simple name accesses within a block.  And therein lies the rub
	-- instead of just worrying about the issue when we arrive at
	variable declarations, we need to verify this property at
	every use of a simple name within a block.

	The key notion that helps us is to note the bi-directional
	action of a variable declaration.  The declaration together
	with anti-shadowing rules can maintain the IMiaB property for
	the block containing the declaration and all nested sub
	blocks.  But, the IMiaB property also forces all surrounding
	blocks to avoid using the name.  We thus need to maintain a
	blacklist of taboo names in all surrounding blocks -- and we
	take the expedient of doing so simply: actually maintaining a
	(superset of the) blacklist in each block data structure, which
	we call the 'known_variable' list.

	Because we create the 'known_variable' list during the parse
	process, by the time we do simple name resolution, all the
	blacklists are fully populated.  So, we can just enforce the
	rest of the IMiaB property by looking up a couple of lists.

	This turns out to be quite efficient: when we used a block
	tree walk, a test case took 5-10mins, while with this simple
	mildly-redundant data structure, the time taken for the same
	test case came down to a couple of seconds.

	The IKnownVariable interface is a small wrinkle.  Firstly, the
	IMiaB also applies to parameter names, especially those of
	anonymous methods.  Secondly, we need more information than
	just the name in the blacklist -- we need the location of the
	name and where it's declared.  We use the IKnownVariable
	interface to abstract out the parser information stored for
	local variables and parameters.

* The semantic analysis 

	Hence, the compiler driver has to parse all the input files.
	Once all the input files have been parsed, and an internal
	representation of the input program exists, the following
	steps are taken:

		* The interface hierarchy is resolved first.
	 	  As the interface hierarchy is constructed,
		  TypeBuilder objects are created for each one of
		  them. 

		* Classes and structure hierarchy is resolved next,
		  TypeBuilder objects are created for them.

		* Constants and enumerations are resolved.

		* Method, indexer, properties, delegates and event
		  definitions are now entered into the TypeBuilders. 

		* Elements that contain code are now invoked to
		  perform semantic analysis and code generation.

* Output Generation

** Code Generation

	The EmitContext class is created any time that IL code is to
	be generated (methods, properties, indexers and attributes all
	create EmitContexts).  

	The EmitContext keeps track of the current namespace and type
	container.  This is used during name resolution.

	An EmitContext is used by the underlying code generation
	facilities to track the state of code generation:

		* The ILGenerator used to generate code for this
		  method.

		* The TypeContainer where the code lives, this is used
		  to access the TypeBuilder.

		* The DeclSpace, this is used to resolve names through
	 	  RootContext.LookupType in the various statements and
	 	  expressions. 
	
	Code generation state is also tracked here:

		* CheckState:

		  This variable tracks the `checked' state of the
		  compilation, it controls whether we should generate
		  code that does overflow checking, or if we generate
		  code that ignores overflows.
		  
		  The default setting comes from the command line
		  option to generate checked or unchecked code plus
		  any source code changes using the checked/unchecked
		  statements or expressions.  Contrast this with the
		  ConstantCheckState flag.

		* ConstantCheckState
		  
		  The constant check state is always set to `true' and
		  cant be changed from the command line.  The source
		  code can change this setting with the `checked' and
		  `unchecked' statements and expressions.
		  
		* IsStatic
		  
		  Whether we are emitting code inside a static or
		  instance method
		  
		* ReturnType
		  
		  The value that is allowed to be returned or NULL if
		  there is no return type.
		  
		* ReturnLabel 

	  	  A `Label' used by the code if it must jump to it.
		  This is used by a few routines that deals with exception
		  handling.

		* HasReturnLabel

		  Whether we have a return label defined by the toplevel
	   	  driver.
		  
		* ContainerType
		  
		  Points to the Type (extracted from the
		  TypeContainer) that declares this body of code
		  summary>
		  
		  
		* IsConstructor
		  
		  Whether this is generating code for a constructor

		* CurrentBlock

		  Tracks the current block being generated.

		* ReturnLabel;
		
		  The location where return has to jump to return the
		  value

	A few variables are used to track the state for checking in
	for loops, or in try/catch statements:

		* InFinally
		
		  Whether we are in a Finally block

		* InTry

		  Whether we are in a Try block

		* InCatch
		  
		  Whether we are in a Catch block

		* InUnsafe
		  Whether we are inside an unsafe block

	Methods exposed by the EmitContext:

		* EmitTopBlock()

		  This emits a toplevel block. 

		  This routine is very simple, to allow the anonymous
		  method support to roll its two-stage version of this
		  routine on its own.

		* NeedReturnLabel ():

		  This is used to flag during the resolution phase that 
		  the driver needs to initialize the `ReturnLabel'

* Anonymous Methods

	The introduction of anonymous methods in the compiler changed
	various ways of doing things in the compiler.  The most
	significant one is the hard split between the resolution phase
	and the emission phases of the compiler.

	For instance, routines that referenced local variables no
	longer can safely create temporary variables during the
	resolution phase: they must do so from the emission phase,
	since the variable might have been "captured", hence access to
	it can not be done with the local-variable operations from the
	runtime.

	The code emission is in:

		EmitTopBlock ()

	Which drives the process, it first resolves the topblock, then
	emits the required metadata (local variable definitions) and
	finally emits the code.

	A detailed description of anonymous methods and iterators is
	on the new-anonymous-design.txt file in this directory.

* Lambda Expressions

	Lambda expressions can come in two forms: those that have implicit
	parameter types and those that have explicit parameter types, for
	example:

		Explicit:	

		        Foo ((int x) => x + 1);

		Implicit:

			Foo (x => x + 1)


	One of the problems that we faced with lambda expressions is
	that lambda expressions need to be "probed" with different
	types until a working combination is found.

	For example:

	    x => x.i

	The above expression could mean vastly different things depending
	on the type of "x".  The compiler determines the type of "x" (left
	hand side "x") at the moment the above expression is "bound",
	which means that during the compilation process it will try to
	match the above lambda with all the possible types available, for
	example:

        delegate int di (int x);
        delegate string ds (string s);
        ..
        Foo (di x) {}
        Foo (ds x) {}
        ...
        Foo (x => "string")

	In the above example, overload resolution will try "x" as an "int"
	and will try "x" as a string.  And if one of them "compiles" thats
	the one it picks (and it also copes with ambiguities if there was
	more than one matching method).

	To compile this, we need to hook into the resolution process,
	but since the resolution process has side effects (calling
	Resolve can either return instances of the resolved expression
	type, or can alter field internals) it was necessary to
	incorporate a framework to "clone" expressions before we
	probe.

	The support for cloning was added into Statements and
	Expressions and is only necessary for objects of those types
	that are created during parsing.   It is not necessary to
	support these in the classes that are the result of calling
	Resolve.   This means that SimpleName needs support for
	Cloning, but FieldExpr does not need it (SimpleName is created
	by the parser, FieldExpr is created during semantic analysis
	resolution).   

	The work happens through the public method called "Clone" that
	clones the given Statement or Expression.  The base method in
	Statement and Expression merely does a MemberwiseCopy of the
	elements and then calls the virtual CloneTo method to complete
	the copy.    By default this method throws an exception, this
	is useful to catch cases where we forgot to override CloneTo
	for a given Statement/Expression. 

	With the cloning capability it became possible to call resolve
	multiple times (once for each Cloned copy) and based on this
	picking the one implementation that would compile and that
	would not be ambiguous.

	The cloning process is basically a deep copy that happens in the
	LambdaExpression class and it clones the top-level block for the
	lambda expression.    The cloning has the side effect of cloning
	the entire containing block as well. 

	This happens inside this method:

        public override bool ImplicitStandardConversionExists (Type delegate_type)

	This is used to determine if the current Lambda expression can be
	implicitly converted to the given delegate type.

	And also happens as a result of the generic method parameter
	type inferencing. 

** Lambda Expressions and Cloning

	All statements that are created during the parsing method should
	implement the CloneTo method:

                protected virtual void CloneTo (CloneContext clonectx, Statement target)

	This method is called by the Statement.Clone method after it has
	done a shallow-copy of all the fields in the statement, and they
	should typically Clone any child statements.

	Expressions should implement the CloneTo method as well:

                protected virtual void CloneTo (CloneContext clonectx, Expression target)

** Lambda Expressions and Contextual Return

	When an expression is parsed as a lambda expression, the parser
	inserts a call to a special statement, the contextual return.

	The expression:

	    a => a+1

	Is actually compiled as:

	    a => contextual_return (a+1)

	The contextual_return statement will behave differently depending
	on the return type of the delegate that the expression will be
	converted to.

	If the delegate return type is void, the above will basically turn
	into an empty operation.   Otherwise the above will become
	a return statement that can infer return types.

* Evaluation API

	The compiler can now be used as a library, the API exposed
	lives in the Mono.CSharp.Evaluator class and it can currently
	compile statements and expressions passed as strings and
	compile or compile and execute immediately.

	As of April 2009 this creates a new in-memory assembly for
	each statement evaluated.   

	To support this evaluator mode, the evaluator API primes the
	tokenizer with an initial character that would not appear in
	valid C# code and is one of:

	    int EvalStatementParserCharacter = 0x2190;   // Unicode Left Arrow
	    int EvalCompilationUnitParserCharacter = 0x2191;  // Unicode Arrow
	    int EvalUsingDeclarationsParserCharacter = 0x2192;  // Unicode Arrow

        These character are turned into the following tokens:

	  %token EVAL_STATEMENT_PARSER
	  %token EVAL_COMPILATION_UNIT_PARSER
	  %token EVAL_USING_DECLARATIONS_UNIT_PARSER

	This means that the first token returned by the tokenizer when
	used by the Evalutor API is a special token that helps the
	yacc parser go from the traditional parsing of a full
	compilation-unit to the interactive parsing:

	The entry production for the compiler basically becomes:

	  compilation_unit
		//
		// The standard rules
		//
	        : outer_declarations opt_EOF  
	        | outer_declarations global_attributes opt_EOF
	        | global_attributes opt_EOF
	  	| opt_EOF /* allow empty files */

		//
		// The rule that allows interactive parsing
		//
	  	| interactive_parsing  { Lexer.CompleteOnEOF = false; } opt_EOF
	  	;
	  
	  //
	  // This is where Evaluator API drives the compilation
	  //
	  interactive_parsing
	  	: EVAL_STATEMENT_PARSER EOF 
	  	| EVAL_USING_DECLARATIONS_UNIT_PARSER using_directives
	  	| EVAL_STATEMENT_PARSER 
	  	  interactive_statement_list opt_COMPLETE_COMPLETION 
	  	| EVAL_COMPILATION_UNIT_PARSER 
	  	  interactive_compilation_unit
	  	;
	
	Since there is a little bit of ambiguity for example in the
	presence of the using directive and the using statement a
	micro-predicting parser with multiple token look aheads is
	used in eval.cs to resolve the ambiguity and produce the
	actual token that will drive the compilation.

	This helps this scenario:
	     using System;
	   vs
	     using (var x = File.OpenRead) {}

	This is the meaning of these new initial tokens:

	     EVAL_STATEMENT_PARSER
	     	Used to parse statements or expressions as statements.

	     EVAL_USING_DECLARATIONS_UNIT_PARSER
	        This instructs the parser to merely do using-directive
	        parsing instead of statement parsing. 

	     EVAL_COMPILATION_UNIT_PARSER
		Used to evaluate toplevel declarations like namespaces
		and classes.   

		The feature is currently disabled because later stages
		of the compiler are not yet able to lookup previous
		definitions of classes.   

		What happens is that between each call to Evaluate()
		we reset the compiler state and at this stage we drop
		also any existing definitions, so evaluating "class X
		{}" followed by "class Y : X {}" does not currently
		work. 

		We need to make sure that new type definitions used
		interactively are preseved from one evaluation to the
		next. 

	The evaluator the expression or statement `BODY' is hosted
	inside a wrapper class.   If the statement is a variable
	declaration then the declaration is split from the assignment
	into a DECLARATION and BODY.   

	This is what the code generated looks like:

	     public class Foo : $InteractiveBaseClass {
	     	    DECLARATION

	     	    static void Host (ref object $retval)
		    {
			BODY
		    }
	     }

	Since both statements and expressions are mixed together and
	it is useful to use the Evaluator to compute expressions we
	return expressions for example for "1+2" in the `retval'
	reference object. 

	To support this, the reference retval parameter is set to a
	special internal value that means "Value was not set" before
	the method Host is invoked.    During parsing the parser turns
	expressions like "1+2" into:

		    retval = 1 + 2;

	This is done using a special OptionalAssign
	ExpressionStatement class. 

	When the Host method return, if the value of retval is still
	the special flag no value was set.  Otherwise the result of
	the expression is in retval.

	The `InteractiveBaseClass' is the base class for the method,
	this allows for embedders to provide different base classes
	that could expose new static methods that could be useful
	during expression evaluation.
	
	Our default implementation is InteractiveBaseClass and new
	implementations should derive from this and set the property
	in the Evaluator to it. 

	In the future we will move to creating dynamic methods as the
	wrapper for this code.

* Code Completion

	Support for code completion is available to allow the compiler
	to provide a list of possible completions at any given point
	int he parsing process.   This is used for Tab-completion in
	an interactive shell or visual aids in GUI shells for possible
	method completions. 

	This method is available as part of the Evaluator API where a
	special method GetCompletions returns a list of possible
	completions given a partial input.

	The parser and tokenizer work together so that the tokenizer
	upon reaching the end of the input generates the following
	tokens: GENERATE_COMPLETION followed by as many
	COMPLETE_COMPLETION token and finally the EOF token.

	GENERATE_COMPLETION needs to be handled in every production
	where the user is likely to press the TAB key in the shell (or
	in the future the GUI, or an explicit request in an IDE).
	COMPLETE_COMPLETION must be handled throughout the grammar to
	provide a way of completing the parsed expression.  See below
	for details.

	For the member access case, I have added productions that
	mirror the non-completing productions, for example:

	  primary_expression DOT IDENTIFIER GENERATE_COMPLETION 
	  {
	        LocatedToken lt = (LocatedToken) $3;
	        $$ = new CompletionMemberAccess ((Expression) $1, lt.Value, lt.Location);
	  }
	
	This mirrors:

	  primary_expression DOT IDENTIFIER opt_type_argument_list
	  {
	        LocatedToken lt = (LocatedToken) $3;
	        $$ = new MemberAccess ((Expression) $1, lt.Value, (TypeArguments) $4, lt.Location);
	  }
	
	The CompletionMemberAccess is a new kind of
	Mono.CSharp.Expression that does the actual lookup.  It
	internally mimics some of the MemberAccess code but has been
	tuned for this particular use.

	After this initial token is processed GENERATE_COMPLETION the
	tokenizer will emit COMPLETE_COMPLETION tokens.  This is done
	to help the parser basically produce a valid result from the
	partial input it received.  For example it is able to produce
	a valid AST from "(x" even if no parenthesis has been closed.
	This is achieved by sprinkling the grammar with productions
	that can cope with this "winding down" token, for example this
	is what parenthesized_expression looks like now:

	  parenthesized_expression
	          : OPEN_PARENS expression CLOSE_PARENS
	            {
	                  $$ = new ParenthesizedExpression ((Expression) $2);
	            }
	          //
	          // New production
	          //
	          | OPEN_PARENS expression COMPLETE_COMPLETION
	            {
	                  $$ = new ParenthesizedExpression ((Expression) $2);
	            }
	          ;
	  
	  Once we have wrapped up everything we generate the last EOF token.

	When the AST is complete we actually trigger the regular
	semantic analysis process.  The DoResolve method of each node
	in our abstract syntax tree will compute the result and
	communicate the possible completions by throwing an exception
	of type CompletionResult.

	So for example if the user type "T" and the completion is
	"ToString" we return "oString".

** Enhancing Completion

	Code completion is a process that will be curated over time.  
	Just like producing good error reports and warnings is an
	iterative process, to find a good balance, the code completion
	engine in the compiler will require tuning to find the right
	balance for the end user. 

	This section explains the basic process by which you can
	improve the code completion by using a real life sample.

	Once you add the GENERATE_COMPLETION token to your grammar
	rule, chances are, you will need to alter the grammar to
	support COMPLETE_COMPLETION all the way up to the toplevel
	production.

	To debug this, you will want to try the completion with either
	a sample program or with the `csharp' tool.

	I use this setup:

	$ csharp -v -v

	This will turn on the parser debugging output and will
	generate a lot of data when parsing its input.

	To start with a new completion scheme, type your C# code and
	then hit the tab key to trigger the completion engine.  In the
	generated output you will want to look for the first time that
	the parser got the GENERATE_COMPLETION token, it will look
	like this:

	lex	state 414	reading	GENERATE_COMPLETION value {interactive}(1,35):

	The first word `lex' indicates that the parser called the
	lexer at state 414 (more on this in a second) and it got back
	from the lexer the token GENERATE_COMPLETION.   If this is a
	kind of completion chances are, you will get an error
	immediately as the rules at that point do not know how to cope
	with the stream of COMPLETE_COMPLETION tokens that will
	follow, they will look like this:

	error	syntax error
	pop	state 414	on error
	pop	state 805	on error
	pop	state 628	on error
	pop	state 417	on error
	
	The first line means that the parser has entered the error
	state and will pop states until it can find a production that
	can deal with the error.   At that point an error message will
	be displayed.

	Open the file `y.output' which describes the parser states
	generated by jay and search for the state that was reported
	previously in `lex' that got the GENERATE_COMPLETION:

	state 414
		object_or_collection_initializer : OPEN_BRACE . opt_member_initializer_list CLOSE_BRACE  (444)
		object_or_collection_initializer : OPEN_BRACE . member_initializer_list COMMA CLOSE_BRACE  (445)
		opt_member_initializer_list : .  (446)
	
	We now know that the parser was in the middle of parsing an
	`object_or_collection_initializer' and had alread seen the
	OPEN_BRACE token.

	The `.' after OPEN_BRACE indicates the current state of the
	parser, and this is where our parser got the
	GENERATE_COMPLETION token.   As you can see from the three
	rules in this sample, support for GENERATE_COMPLETION did not
	exist.

	So we must edit the grammar to add a production for this case,
	I made the code look like this:

	member_initializer
		[...]
		| GENERATE_COMPLETION 
		  {
		  	LocatedToken lt = $1 as LocatedToken;
			$$ = new CompletionElementInitializer (GetLocation ($1));
		  }
		[...]

	This new production creates the class
	CompletionElementInitializer and returns this as the value for
	this.   The following is a trivial implementation that always
	returns "foo" and "bar" as the two completions and it
	illustrates how things work:

	public class CompletionElementInitializer : CompletingExpression {
		public CompletionElementInitializer (Location l)
		{
			this.loc = l;
		}

		public override Expression DoResolve (EmitContext ec)
		{
			string [] = new string [] { "foo", "bar" };
			throw new CompletionResult ("", result);
		}

		// 
		// You should implement CloneTo if your CompletingExpression
		// keeps copies to Statements or Expressions.   CloneTo
		// is used by the lambda engine, so you should always
		// implement this
		//
		protected override void CloneTo (CloneContext clonectx, Expression t)
		{
			// We do not keep references to anything interesting
			// so cloning is an empty operation.
		}
	}
	

	We then rebuild our compiler:

	(cd mcs/; make cs-parser.jay)
	(cd tools/csharplib; make install)

	And re-run csharp:

	(cd tools/csharp; csharp -v -v)

	Chances are, you will get another error, but this time it will
	not be for the GENERATE_COMPLETION, we already handled that
	one.   This time it will be for COMPLETE_COMPLETION.  

	The remaining of the process is iterative: you need to locate
	the state where this error happens.   It will look like this:

	lex	state 623	reading COMPLETE_COMPLETION	value {interactive}(1,35):
	error	syntax error
	
	And make sure that the state can handle at this point a
	COMPLETE_COMPLETION.   When receiving COMPLETE_COMPLETION the
	parser needs to complete constructing the parse tree, so
	productions that handle COMPLETE_COMPLETION need to wrap
	things up with whatever data they have available and just make
	it so that the parser can complete.

	To avoid rule duplication you can use the
	opt_COMPLETE_COMPLETION production and append it to an
	existing production:

	foo : bar opt_COMPLETE_COMPLETION {
	    ..
	}

* Miscellaneous

** Error Processing.

	Errors are reported during the various stages of the
	compilation process.  The compiler stops its processing if
	there are errors between the various phases.  This simplifies
	the code, because it is safe to assume always that the data
	structures that the compiler is operating on are always
	consistent.

	The error codes in the Mono C# compiler are the same as those
	found in the Microsoft C# compiler, with a few exceptions
	(where we report a few more errors, those are documented in
	mcs/errors/errors.txt).  The goal is to reduce confusion to
	the users, and also to help us track the progress of the
	compiler in terms of the errors we report. 

	The Report class provides error and warning display functions,
	and also keeps an error count which is used to stop the
	compiler between the phases.  

	A couple of debugging tools are available here, and are useful
	when extending or fixing bugs in the compiler.  If the
	`--fatal' flag is passed to the compiler, the Report.Error
	routine will throw an exception.  This can be used to pinpoint
	the location of the bug and examine the variables around the
	error location.	 If you pass a number to --fatal the exception
	will only be thrown when the error count reaches the specified
	count. 

	Warnings can be turned into errors by using the `--werror'
	flag to the compiler. 

	The report class also ignores warnings that have been
	specified on the command line with the `--nowarn' flag.

	Finally, code in the compiler uses the global variable
	RootContext.WarningLevel in a few places to decide whether a
	warning is worth reporting to the user or not.  

** Debugging the compiler

	Sometimes it is convenient to find *how* a particular error
	message is being reported from, to do that, you might want to use
	the --fatal flag to mcs.  The flag will instruct the compiler to 
	abort with a stack trace execution when the error is reported.

	You can use this with -warnaserror to obtain the same effect
	with warnings. 

** Debugging the Parser.

	A useful trick while debugging the parser is to pass the -v
	command line option to the compiler.

	The -v command line option will dump the various Yacc states
	as well as the tokens that are being returned from the
	tokenizer to the compiler.

	This is useful when tracking down problems when the compiler
	is not able to parse an expression correctly.

	You can match the states reported with the contents of the
	y.output file, a file that contains the parsing tables and
	human-readable information about the generated parser.

* Editing the compiler sources

	The compiler sources are intended to be edited with 134
	columns of width.

* Quick Hacks

	Once you have a full build of mcs, you can improve your
	development time by just issuing make in the `mcs' directory or
	using `make qh' in the gmcs directory.
