simplify

compiler/test/ast/TestVariousCompilerAst.kt

@@ -881,6 +881,9 @@ main {
         DataType.UWORD.isWord shouldBe true
         DataType.BYTE.isByte shouldBe true
         DataType.UBYTE.isByte shouldBe true
+        DataType.BOOL.isBool shouldBe true
+        DataType.STR.isString shouldBe true
+        DataType.FLOAT.isFloat shouldBe true
 
         DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.UNDEFINED).isUndefined shouldBe true
         DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.LONG).isLong shouldBe true
@@ -888,6 +891,9 @@ main {
         DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.UWORD).isWord shouldBe true
         DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.BYTE).isByte shouldBe true
         DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.UBYTE).isByte shouldBe true
+        DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.BOOL).isBool shouldBe true
+        DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.STR).isString shouldBe true
+        DataType.forDt(BaseDataType.FLOAT).isFloat shouldBe true
 
         DataType.arrayFor(BaseDataType.UBYTE, true).isUnsignedByteArray shouldBe true
         DataType.arrayFor(BaseDataType.FLOAT).isFloatArray shouldBe true

docs/source/todo.rst

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Future Things and Ideas
   in certain situations (need examples!), the "wrong" order of evaluation of function call arguments is done which results
   in overwriting registers that already got their value, which requires a lot of stack juggling (especially on plain 6502 cpu!)
   Maybe this routine can be made more intelligent.  See usesOtherRegistersWhileEvaluating() and argumentsViaRegisters().
-- Does it make codegen easier if everything is an expression?  Start with the PtProgram ast , get rid of the statements there -> expressions that have Void data type
+- Does it make codegen easier if everything is an expression?  Start with the PtProgram ast classes, change statements to expressions that have (new) VOID data type
 - Can we support signed % (remainder) somehow?
 - Multidimensional arrays and chained indexing, purely as syntactic sugar over regular arrays. Probaby only useful if we have typed pointers.
 - make a form of "manual generics" possible like: varsub routine(T arg)->T  where T is expanded to a specific type

simpleAst/src/prog8/code/ast/AstBase.kt

@@ -31,10 +31,7 @@ sealed class PtNode(val position: Position) {
 }
 
 
-sealed interface IPtStatementContainer
-
-
-class PtNodeGroup : PtNode(Position.DUMMY), IPtStatementContainer
+class PtNodeGroup : PtNode(Position.DUMMY)
 
 
 sealed class PtNamedNode(var name: String, position: Position): PtNode(position) {
@@ -79,7 +76,7 @@ class PtBlock(name: String,
               val source: SourceCode,       // taken from the module the block is defined in.
               val options: Options,
               position: Position
-) : PtNamedNode(name, position), IPtStatementContainer {
+) : PtNamedNode(name, position) {
     class Options(val address: UInt? = null,
                   val forceOutput: Boolean = false,
                   val noSymbolPrefixing: Boolean = false,

simpleAst/src/prog8/code/ast/AstStatements.kt

@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ class PtSub(
     val parameters: List<PtSubroutineParameter>,
     val returns: List<DataType>,
     position: Position
-) : PtNamedNode(name, position), IPtSubroutine, IPtStatementContainer {
+) : PtNamedNode(name, position), IPtSubroutine {
     init {
         // params and return values should not be str
         if(parameters.any{ !it.type.isNumericOrBool })
@@ -227,7 +227,7 @@ class PtWhenChoice(val isElse: Boolean, position: Position) : PtNode(position) {
 }
 
 
-class PtDefer(position: Position): PtNode(position), IPtStatementContainer
+class PtDefer(position: Position): PtNode(position)
 
 
 class PtJmpTable(position: Position) : PtNode(position)     // contains only PtIdentifier nodes