Introduce inst generic boundary

[taichi-ishitani]

This PR is to a new generic boundary named inst.
The isnt boundary is to specify module or interface instance as a generic parameter.

refs: #963 (comment)

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #1192 will not alter performance

_{Comparing taichi-ishitani:interface_on_generic_args (33f9eb6) with master (b8588f5)}

Summary

✅ 3 untouched benchmarks

[dalance]

At Rust 2024 (Rust 1.85), if-let chain will be stabilized.
After it, this large if chain can be re-written like below. So TODO comment may be useful to mark for re-writing.

if arg.is_resolvable()
  && let Ok(symbol) = ...
  && let SymbolKind::Instance(x) = ...
  && let Ok(x) = ...
  && let Some(ref x) = x.found.proto() {
  ...
} else {
  false
}

[taichi-ishitani]

I added todo comments.

veryl/crates/analyzer/src/handlers/check_type.rs

Line 214 in c353e61

// TODO:

veryl/crates/analyzer/src/handlers/check_type.rs

Line 267 in c353e61

// TODO:

[dalance]

I think this example is bit strange.
IF is bound by Interface55I, but Interface55I is not proto but specific type, so IF is always Interface55I.
Therefore I think generics is not required in this case.
How about adding proto interface support described at #963 like below?

proto interface PInterface {
    function FuncA(a: input logic, b: input logic) -> logic;
}

interface Interface55I for PInterface {
    function FuncA(a: input logic, b: input logic) -> logic {
        return 0;
    }
}

module Module55I::<IF: PInterface> {
    inst u: IF;
}

module X {
    inst u: Module55I::<Interface55I>;
}

[taichi-ishitani]

I agree with you but a lot of changes is needed to introduce proto interface.
For now, how about removing this example and opening a new PR to introduce proto interface?

[dalance]

I agree you. check_type.rs:387-390 and symbol.rs:304 should be removed probably.

[taichi-ishitani]

I removed changes to allow interface to be used as generic boundary.

[dalance]

Is this line necessary?

[taichi-ishitani]

Yes.
It is used at here.

veryl/crates/analyzer/src/handlers/check_type.rs

Line 274 in c353e61

if let Some(ref x) = symbol.found.proto() {

[dalance]

In this PR, interface can't be used as generic boudary. So I think adding SymbolKind::Interface(_) is not necessary, and SymbolKind::Interface(x) => x.proto.clone(), should be added at introducing proto interface.

[taichi-ishitani]

The inst boundary with specific interface is needed for usecase shown in #793.
Therefore, this change is needed.

[dalance]

I understood this line is used, but I think it is not appropriate that non proto symbol returns Some from proto().
Changing proto() to proto_or_inst() or splitting it into proto() and inst() is better.
I prefer the splitting way because inst can be assigned to a generic parameter bound as proto if proto and inst are not distincted.

[taichi-ishitani]

I removed the statement for the SymbolKind::Interface but did not add the inst function.
Instead of the function, I added resolve_inst_generic_arg_type and resolve_proto_generic_arg_type functions to simplify resolving type of generic arguments.

[dalance]

Thanks!
I think this is better than my idea.