Allow full commands and blocks in type sections

[metagn]

Previously only the following syntax compiled:

type A = call(x, y, z...)
type B = call x # single argument

Now the following compiles:

type
  Foo = call x, y, z:
    abc
  do:
    def

[Araq]

This needs a corresponding grammar update. You do that by editing the #| comments inside parser.nim and then run nim c -r compiler/parser.nim.

[c-blake]

Looks like type A = call(x=yadda, y=howza, ..) also already works, but maybe that's not sufficiently distinct to count. Seems convenient for macro generated type sections.

If you are in the mood to hack on the parser, this is another case where "named do" might help make block-call sites more self-documenting and re-orderable. :-) { idea being w.do: or do(w): for some hypothetical 4th param w in your def example }. Surely another PR, though.

[metagn]

@c-blake For most cases of is enough for labelling. do (w): is also valid syntax, you can handle it if you are using a macro. do block label: is an unambiguous option but pretty ugly

[c-blake]

Well, personally I like the dotcall syntax best as in w.do:. (EDIT: oh, and having to use a macro every time just to "round out" named parameter style seems a smidge onerous.)

[juancarlospaco]

Does it allows pragmas ?.

[metagn]

Does it allows pragmas ?.

Do you mean the syntax in this PR? I don't see why they wouldn't, where are you expecting the pragmas to be?

[metagn]

This needs a corresponding grammar update. You do that by editing the #| comments inside parser.nim and then run nim c -r compiler/parser.nim.

@Araq Is the grammar update sufficient?

[metagn]

Review?

[Araq]

You need to add a couple of tests showing that invalid indentation and precedence problems are still detected properly.

[metagn]

Added some tests, can't think of more