Implement closures

[MaxGraey]

I decide to start discussion about simple closure implementations.

Some obvious (and may be naive) implementation is using generation class context which I prefer to demonstrate in following example:

declare function externalCall(a: i32, b: i32): void;

function range(a: i32, b: i32, fn: (n: i32) => void): void {
 if (a < b) {
 fn(a);
 range(a + 1, b, fn);
 }
}

export function test(n: i32): void {
 range(0, n, (i: i32) => {
 externalCall(i, n); // capture n
 });
}

which transform to:

// generated
class ClosureContext {
 fn: (ctx: usize, i: i32) => void;
 n: i32; // captured var
 // optinal "self: usize;" is closure instantiate inside instance class method
 parent: ClosureContext | null = null;
}

// generated
function lambdaFn(ctx: usize, i: i32): void {
 externalCall(i, changetype<ClosureContext>(ctx).n);
}

function range(a: i32, b: i32, ctx: usize): void {
 if (a < b) {
 changetype<ClosureContext>(ctx).fn(ctx, a); // replaced from "fn(a)";
 range(a + 1, b, ctx);
 }
}

export function test(n: i32): void {
 // insert
 let ctx = new ClosureContext();
 ctx.fn = lambdaFn;
 ctx.n = n;
 //
 range(0, n, changetype<usize>(ctx));
}

Closure and ClosureContext will not generated when no one variable was captured and use usual anonym functions.
ClosureContext will not created when only this was captured. In this case ctx param use to pass this reference.

Other discussions: #563

@dcodeIO @jtenner @willemneal Let me know what you think about this?

[jtenner]

I think we need to override the meaning of call indirect.

[jtenner]

How would this transform?

function add(a, b): callback {
 return () => a + b;
}

[MaxGraey]

@jtenner

class ClosureContext {
 fn: (ctx: usize) => i32;
 a: i32;
 b: i32;
 parent: ClosureContext | null = null;
}

function lambdaAdd(ctx: usize): i32 {
 return changetype<ClosureContext>(ctx).a + changetype<ClosureContext>(ctx).b;
}

function add(a: i32, b: i32): ClosureContext {
 let ctx = new ClosureContext();
 ctx.fn = lambdaAdd;
 ctx.a = a;
 ctx.b = b;
 return ctx;
}

[MaxGraey]

Instead

class ClosureContext {
 fn: (ctx: usize) => i32;
 b: i32;
 ...
}

we could just store index for indirect function table

class ClosureContext {
 fnIdx: usize;
 a: i32;
 ...
}

... 

call_indirect(ctx.fnIdx, ...args)

[jtenner]

How does this work with function dispatch?

For instance, let's say I pass the Closure Context out to js as a pointer. How can I re-call it?

[jtenner]

Is there a way to make a table and add entries to it?

[MaxGraey]

@jtenner actually you need pass only fn / fnIdx. After that just use same approach as for anonymus indirect function calls.

EDIT No you need unpack fn from returned ClosureContext object. Just provide another util for loader

[MaxGraey]

Next example:

function test(fn: (x: i32) => void): i32 {
 let n = 0;
 fn(x => { n = x });
 return n;
}

should generate:

class ClosureContext {
 fn: (ctx: usize, x: i32) => void;
 n: i32;
 parent: ClosureContext | null = null;
}

function lambdaFn(ctx: usize, x: i32): void {
 changetype<ClosureContext>(ctx).n = x;
}

function test(fn: (x: i32) => void): i32 {
 let n = 0;
 let ctx = new ClosureContext();
 ctx.fn = lambdaFn;
 ctx.n = n;
 fn(changetype<usize>(ctx));
 n = ctx.n;
 return n;
}

[jtenner]

Well I'm thinking about aspect collecting function pointers. How will aspect need to work with the function pointers?

[jtenner]

My guess is that passing around the closure context will cause problems with manually using call_indirect like aspect does.

Also, this closure method doesn't handle multiple references to the same local.

let a = 1;
let b = () => a;
let c = () => a += 1;

B and c will get different versions of a.

[MaxGraey]

@jtenner
You could get table and get function by index / ref. For example you have wasm:

(func $foo (result i32) (i32.const 1234))
(table (export "tbl") anyfunc (elem $foo))

than you js part:

WebAssembly.instantiateStreaming(fetch('main.wasm')).then(({ instance }) => {
 const table = instance.exports.tbl;
 console.log(table.get(0)()); // 1234
});

[jtenner]

It's likely we will need to allocate enclosed local values in a table or on the heap. Each pointer to those values will need to be stored in a table pointing to the heap.

This idea is Naive because the variables can no longer be treated like local variables because it's possible to modify local values before the function finishes executing.

[MaxGraey]

B and c will get different versions of a.

Why?

let a = 1;
let b = () => a;
let c = () => a += 1;

let br = b(); // 1
let cr = c(); // 2
// assert(a == 2)

Will generate:

class ClosureContextB { fn; a; }
class ClosureContextC { fn; a; }

function lambdaB(ctx: usize): i32 {
 return changetype<ClosureContextB>(ctx).a;
}

function lambdaC(ctx: usize): i32 {
 return changetype<ClosureContextC>(ctx).a += 1;
}

let a = 1;

let ctxB = new ClosureContextB(lambdaB, a);
let br = b(ctxB); // 1
// a = ctxB.a; // 1 unmodified so unnecessary

let ctxC = new ClosureContextB(lambdaC, a);
let cr = c(ctxC); // 2
a = ctxC.a; // 2

[jtenner]

I'm saying a in that example needs to exist on the heap for both b and c to access it, and the closure class needs to contain a Box<i32> that points to the heap location.

[MaxGraey]

No, we don't need pass plain types by boxed references. Also found pretty clear article. So ClosureContext (LexicalEnvironment) should be little bit modifier and also store reference to it's parent LexicalEnvironment.