Clarified and corrected Canonical Syntax

Author: eernstg

specification/dartLangSpec.tex

@@ -22124,7 +22124,8 @@ \subsubsection{Subtype Rules}
 
 \LMHash{}%
 In section~\ref{subtypes} and its subsections,
-all types are considered to be denoted by their canonical syntax
+all designations of types are considered to be the same
+if{}f they have the same canonical syntax
 (\ref{theCanonicalSyntaxOfTypes}).
 
 \commentary{%
@@ -22961,7 +22962,12 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 and $L_2$ could declare a function
 \code{\VOID\,foo(C\,\,c)\,\,\{\}}
 which uses the type \code{C}-in-$L_2$,
-and $L$ could contain the expression \code{foo(v)}.%
+and $L$ could contain the expression \code{foo(v)}.
+
+Note that even though it would be a compile-time error to use \code{C} in $L$
+(because it is ambiguous),
+it is not an error to have an expression like \code{foo(v)},
+and the static analysis of this expression must handle the name clash.%
 }
 
 \rationale{%
@@ -22984,16 +22990,28 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 }
 
 \LMHash{}%
-To determine the
+The
 \IndexCustom{canonical syntax}{type!canonical syntax of}
 of the types in a given library $L_1$
 and all libraries \List{L}{2}{n} reachable from $L_1$ via
-one or more import links,
-first choose a set of distinct, globally fresh identifiers
+one or more import links
+is determined as follows.
+First, choose a set of distinct, globally fresh identifiers
 \List{\metavar{prefix}}{1}{n}.
 Then transform each library $L_i$, $i \in 1 .. n$ as follows:
 
 \begin{enumerate}
+\item
+  If $D_T$ is a declaration of a class, mixin, or type alias in $L_i$
+  whose name $n$ is private,
+  and an occurrence of $n$ that resolves to $D$
+  exists in a type alias declaration $D_A$ whose name is non-private,
+  then perform a consistent renaming of
+  all occurrences of $n$ in $L_i$ that resolve to $D_T$
+  to a fresh, non-private identifier.
+  \commentary{%
+    So we make $D_T$ public, because it is being leaked anyway.%
+  }
 \item
   Add a set of import directives to $L_i$ that imports
   each of the libraries \List{L}{1}{n} with
@@ -23006,18 +23024,20 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
     even itself and system libraries like \code{dart:core}.%
   }
 \item
-  Let \id{} be a non-private identifier that resolves to
-  a library declaration in the library $L_j$ in the original program;
-  \id{} is transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
-  Let \code{$p$.\id} be a qualified identifier where $p$ is
-  an import prefix in the original program,
-  \id{} is a non-private identifier,
-  and \code{$p$.\id} resolves to
-  a library declaration in the library $L_j$ in the original program;
-  \code{$p$.\id} is transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
-\item
-  %% TODO(eernst): We should rename private names to fresh public names.
-  Replace every type that denotes a type alias
+  Let \id{} be a non-private type identifier derived from \synt{typeName}
+  that resolves to a library declaration in the library $L_j$
+  in the original program;
+  \id{} is then transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
+  Let \code{$p$.\id} be derived from \synt{typeName} such that $p$ is
+  an import prefix in the original program
+  and \id{} is a non-private identifier,
+  and consider the case where \code{$p$.\id} resolves to
+  a library declaration in the library $L_j$ in the original program,
+  for some $j$;
+  \code{$p$.\id} is then transformed to \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\id}.
+\item
+  Replace every type in $L_i$ that denotes a type alias
+  along with its actual type arguments, if any,
   by its transitive alias expansion
   (\ref{typedef}).
   \commentary{%
@@ -23029,15 +23049,32 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 \end{enumerate}
 
 \commentary{%
-Note that this transformation does not change any occurrence of \VOID;
-\VOID{} is a reserved word, not an identifier.
+This transformation does not change any occurrence of \VOID;
+\VOID{} is a reserved word, not a type identifier.
 Also, \code{$\metavar{prefix}_j$.\VOID} would be a syntax error.
 
+Note that the transformation changes terms derived from \synt{type},
+but it does not change expressions, or any other program element
+(except that a \synt{type} can occur in an expression, e.g., \code{<int>[]}).
+In particular, it does not change type literals
+(that is, expressions denoting types).
+
 The transformation also does not change identifiers denoting type variables,
+because they are never resolved to a library declaration,
+they are always introduced by a scope which is nested inside the library scope.
 There is no need to change those identifiers, because
-no occurrence of such an identifier resolves to a declaration in a
-different library.%
-%% TODO(eernst): Sort out the treatment of private identifiers, too.
+no occurrence of such an identifier in the type of an expression
+denotes a declaration in a different library.%
+}
+
+\rationale{%
+The only purpose of this transformation is to obtain a
+location-independent designation of all types,
+in such a way that each \synt{typeName} resolves to the same declaration
+before and after the transformation.
+The program behavior may change due to different values returned from
+\code{toString()} on reified types,
+but the transformation is otherwise semantics preserving.%
 }
 
 \LMHash{}%
@@ -23074,15 +23111,21 @@ \subsubsection{The Canonical Syntax of Types}
 because we would need to re-build all the structures that the
 syntax offers.
 For instance, we would need to support the construction of
-a semantic type entity for \code{Map<int, String>},
-based on the semantic type entity for \code{int}, \code{String}, and \code{Map},
+a semantic type entity for \code{Map<int,\,String>},
+based on the semantic type entities for
+\code{int}, \code{String}, and \code{Map},
 and we would need to support deconstruction of those entities
-in order to prove things like \SubtypeNE{Never}{\code{Map<int, String>}}.
+in order to prove things like
+\SubtypeNE{\code{Map<Never,\,Never>}}{\code{Map<int,\,String>}}.
 This would give rise to a lot of mechanism that will simply duplicate
 the structure of the syntax.
 So we prefer to show that the syntax \emph{can} be location independent,
 and that's sufficient to make syntax usable as our representation of
-static semantic types.%
+static semantic types.
+
+We are basically taking the approach that a static semantic type is
+an equivalence class of all syntactic elements derived from \synt{type}
+that have the same canonical syntax.%
 }
 
 
@@ -23173,6 +23216,11 @@ \subsubsection{Standard Upper Bounds and Standard Lower Bounds}
 Finally, it is assumed that all types are denoted by their canonical syntax
 (\ref{theCanonicalSyntaxOfTypes}).
 
+\commentary{%
+This implies that type aliases have already been fully expanded,
+and two types are the same if and only if they have the same syntax.%
+}
+
 %% TODO(eernst), for review: Is this the correct associativity of SUB/SLB?
 \LMHash{}%
 We define the