add a suggestion to use when statement if it seems appropriate

codeGeneration/src/prog8/codegen/target/cpu6502/codegen/AsmGen.kt

@@ -786,8 +786,8 @@ class AsmGen(private val program: Program,
             is When -> translate(stmt)
             is AnonymousScope -> translate(stmt)
             is BuiltinFunctionPlaceholder -> throw AssemblyError("builtin function should not have placeholder anymore")
-            is UntilLoop -> throw AssemblyError("do..until should have been desugared to jumps")
-            is WhileLoop -> throw AssemblyError("while should have been desugared to jumps")
+            is UntilLoop -> throw AssemblyError("do..until should have been converted to jumps")
+            is WhileLoop -> throw AssemblyError("while should have been converted to jumps")
             is Block -> throw AssemblyError("block should have been handled elsewhere")
             is Break -> throw AssemblyError("break should have been replaced by goto")
             else -> throw AssemblyError("missing asm translation for $stmt")

compiler/src/prog8/compiler/BeforeAsmGenerationAstChanger.kt

@@ -36,11 +36,11 @@ internal class BeforeAsmGenerationAstChanger(val program: Program, private val o
     }
 
     override fun before(whileLoop: WhileLoop, parent: Node): Iterable<IAstModification> {
-        throw FatalAstException("while should have been desugared to jumps")
+        throw FatalAstException("while should have been converted to jumps")
     }
 
     override fun before(untilLoop: UntilLoop, parent: Node): Iterable<IAstModification> {
-        throw FatalAstException("do..until should have been desugared to jumps")
+        throw FatalAstException("do..until should have been converted to jumps")
     }
 
     override fun before(block: Block, parent: Node): Iterable<IAstModification> {

compiler/src/prog8/compiler/astprocessing/VariousCleanups.kt

@@ -91,6 +91,19 @@ internal class VariousCleanups(val program: Program, val errors: IErrorReporter)
         return noModifications
     }
 
+    override fun before(expr: BinaryExpression, parent: Node): Iterable<IAstModification> {
+        if(expr.operator == "or") {
+            val leftBinExpr = expr.left as? BinaryExpression
+            val rightBinExpr = expr.right as? BinaryExpression
+            if(leftBinExpr!=null && leftBinExpr.operator=="==" && rightBinExpr!=null && rightBinExpr.operator=="==") {
+                if(leftBinExpr.right is NumericLiteralValue && rightBinExpr.right is NumericLiteralValue) {
+                    errors.warn("consider using when statement to test for multiple values", expr.position)
+                }
+            }
+        }
+        return noModifications
+    }
+
     override fun after(expr: BinaryExpression, parent: Node): Iterable<IAstModification> {
         if(expr.operator in ComparisonOperators) {
             val leftConstVal = expr.left.constValue(program)

compiler/test/TestCompilerOnImportsAndIncludes.kt

@@ -11,9 +11,6 @@ import prog8.ast.statements.FunctionCallStatement
 import prog8.ast.statements.Label
 import prog8.codegen.target.Cx16Target
 import prog8tests.helpers.*
-import prog8tests.helpers.assertFailure
-import prog8tests.helpers.assertSuccess
-import prog8tests.helpers.compileFile
 import kotlin.io.path.name
 
 

docs/source/todo.rst

@@ -3,7 +3,10 @@ TODO
 
 For next compiler release (7.6)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-...
+add "if X in [1,2,3] {...}" syntax , as an alternative to when X { 1,2,3-> {...} }
+if the array is not a literal, do a normal containment test instead in an array or string or range
+change "consider using when statement..." to "consider using if X in [..] or when statement..."
+
 
 Blocked by an official Commander-x16 v39 release
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@@ -13,12 +16,14 @@ Blocked by an official Commander-x16 v39 release
 
 Future
 ^^^^^^
-- rethink the whole "isAugmentable" business.  Because the way this is determined, should always also be exactly mirrorred in the AugmentableAssignmentAsmGen or you'll get a crash at code gen time.
-- simplifyConditionalExpression() should not split expression if it still results in stack-based evaluation
+- make it possible to use cpu opcodes such as 'nop' as variable names by prefixing all asm vars with something such as ``v_``
+  then we can get rid of the instruction lists in the machinedefinitions as well?
 - fix the asm-labels problem (github issue #62)
+- simplifyConditionalExpression() should not split expression if it still results in stack-based evaluation
 - get rid of all TODO's in the code
 - improve testability further, add more tests
 - use more of Result<> and Either<> to handle errors/ nulls better
+- rethink the whole "isAugmentable" business.  Because the way this is determined, should always also be exactly mirrorred in the AugmentableAssignmentAsmGen or you'll get a crash at code gen time.
 - can we get rid of pieces of asmgen.AssignmentAsmGen by just reusing the AugmentableAssignment ? generated code should not suffer
 - add a switch to not create the globals-initialization logic, but instead create a smaller program (that can only run once though)
 - c64: make the graphics.BITMAP_ADDRESS configurable (VIC banking)
@@ -27,7 +32,7 @@ Future
 - add a flood fill routine to gfx2?
 - add a diskio.f_seek() routine for the Cx16 that uses its seek dos api?
 - make it possible for diskio to read and write from more than one file at the same time (= use multiple io channels)?
-- make it possible to use cpu opcodes such as 'nop' as variable names by prefixing all asm vars with something such as ``v_``
+- fix problems in c128 target
 - [problematic due to 64tass:] add a compiler option to not remove unused subroutines. this allows for building library programs. But this won't work with 64tass's .proc ...
   Perhaps replace all uses of .proc/.pend by .block/.bend will fix that?
   (but we lose the optimizing aspect of the assembler where it strips out unused code.
@@ -36,13 +41,9 @@ Future
 
 More code optimization ideas
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+- automatically convert if statements that test for multiple values (if X==1 or X==2..) to if X in [1,2,..] statements
 - byte typed expressions should be evaluated in the accumulator where possible, without (temp)var
    for instance  value = otherbyte >> 1   -->  lda otherbite ; lsr a; sta value
-- rewrite multiple choice if into when:
-    if X==1 or X==2 or X==3 { truepart } else { falsepart }
-    ->  when X  { 1,2,3->truepart   else->falsepart }
-    same with assignment if the lhs is simple var or memaddr
-
 - rewrite expression tree evaluation such that it doesn't use an eval stack but flatten the tree into linear code that uses a fixed number of predetermined value 'variables'
 - this removes the need for the BinExprSplitter? (which is problematic and very limited now)
 - introduce byte-index operator to avoid index multiplications in loops over arrays? see github issue #4

examples/test.p8

@@ -9,6 +9,11 @@ main {
         if xx<100 {
             foobar()
         }
+
+        if xx==9 or xx==10 or xx==11 or xx==12 or xx==13 {
+            txt.print("9 10 11\n")
+        }
+
         txt.print("\nthe end\n")
     }