Added support of collection initializer syntax.

[holdenmai]

Implementation of collection initializer syntax support for constructor #194 Managed to somehow close the original PR on accident during rebase operation pull 246, but all comments have now been resolved.

You can now write

var target = new Interpreter();
target.Reference(typeof(System.Collections.Generic.List<>));
var intList = target.Eval<System.Collections.Generic.List<int>>("new List<int>(){1, 2, 3, 4, 5}");
Assert.AreEqual(5, intList.Count);
for (int i = 0; i < intList.Count; ++i)
{
    Assert.AreEqual(i + 1, intList[i]);
}
or 
 target.Eval<System.Collections.Generic.List<string>>("new List<string>(){string.Empty}");

as well as implementations supporting multiple parameters in the Add method such as

new MyClassAdder(){{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5},{\"6\" },7 }
and
new Dictionary<int, string>(){{1, \"1\"}, {2, \"2\"}, {3, \"3\"}, {4, \"4\"}, {5, \"5\"}}

Reference to method parameters is also supported like below

target.Eval<System.Collections.Generic.List<string>>("new List<string>(){StrProp = string.Empty}", new Parameter("StrProp", "0")) target.Eval<System.Collections.Generic.List<string>>("new List<string>(){StrValue()}", new Parameter("StrValue", new Func<string>(() => "Func")))

[metoule]

That looks really good! Apart from a few nitpicks, I'd recommend adding more tests, mostly to test the various possible exceptions. Also, I believe the current implementation can't parse new List<string> { { string.Empty } }.

[holdenmai]

I have added scenarios within the differing unit tests to cover each of the cases mentioned. Is it preferred that they become standalone cases to better show what negative case they are trying to cover?

[davideicardi]

Thank you @holdenmai

Is it preferred that they become standalone cases to better show what negative case they are trying to cover?

Yes, maybe having separate tests would be better... or try to simplify/explain better the existing ones.

[holdenmai]

I have reorganized the unit tests to better show the different scenarios being covered.

[davideicardi]

LGTM!

@metoule ?

There is just 3 conversations still open that I'm not sure if they are now resolved ...

[metoule]

Sorry for the late review! The code looks good to me, the test cases as well, I still have a few questions, but nothing major.

[metoule]

LGTM! Thank you!! 🚀