[hyperpolymath]

Summary

3 commits.

1. A match with no guard no longer takes a pattern inside a constructor pattern as a wildcard.
2. 3 review findings on feat(parser): unimplemented syntax is refused by name (E7 gate) #434, which merged before they arrived. 2 of them are regressions of feat(parser): unimplemented syntax is refused by name (E7 gate) #434.
3. Doc comments for the declarations that the Docstring Coverage check listed. No behaviour changes.

1. A pattern inside a constructor pattern is not a wildcard

In a match with no guard, the desugarer took a literal or a constructor inside a constructor pattern as a wildcard, and it kept only the last arm of each constructor. Programs gave wrong results with no error.

Program	Before	Now
Some(0) => 1 | Some(n) => 2 | None => 3 on Some(0)	2	1
Some(0) => 1 | None => 3 on Some(5)	1	refused: the match does not cover Some(5)
W(Some(x)) => 1 | W(None) => 0 on W(Some(9))	0	refused by name

A match where an arm has a literal or a constructor inside a constructor pattern now takes the ordered path of a match with a guard (#431): each arm of a constructor, in source order, in one core match on the payload.

• A literal inside a constructor pattern is honoured. The type checker finds a match that does not cover the payload.
• A constructor inside a constructor pattern (W(Some(x))) has no lowering yet. It is refused by name. The error is now NestedConstructorPattern (it was GuardWithNestedConstructor).
• A match with no such pattern and no guard lowers as before.

2. Review findings on #434

• Expression entry points. parse and parse_surface_expr did not refuse unimplemented syntax, and the core parser read 1 ++ 2 as 1. Each entry point of the 2 parsers now runs refuse_unimplemented on the parse tree.
• Interpreter scope (regression of feat(parser): unimplemented syntax is refused by name (E7 gate) #434). A top-level function took the local names of its caller. With let g = 0 in f(1), the g() in the body of f found the g of the caller: "Not a function". A top-level function value now starts from an empty environment.
• Capability annotation. The rule was on declaration annotations. The design has it at the FFI call: __ffi@capabilities(io)("f"). The rule is now in ffi_expr, and the fixture has the design form.

Part 1 of spec/ephapax-v2-grammar.ebnf is written again from the grammar.

3. Doc comments

The CodeRabbit check Docstring Coverage listed declarations with no doc comment. Each one now has a doc comment of 1 or 2 lines:

• library code of the CLI, driver, interpreter, LSP, REPL, syntax, typing and wasm crates;
• the grammar conformance test;
• the helpers of 4 test files (driver_agreement.rs, generics.rs, run_wasm.rs, typed_codegen_matrix.rs).

The commit adds 61 lines of comment in 17 files and changes no code.

Verification

• cargo test --workspace: 623 passed, 0 failed. No program of the corpus changed.
• cargo fmt --all --check and cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets: clean.
• scripts/status-gate.sh: 620 all-target tests.
• scripts/probe-battery.sh: 51 SAME, 7 SKIP (the SKIP rows need the wasmtime CLI).
• New tests: a_pattern_inside_a_constructor_pattern_is_not_a_wildcard, an_expression_with_unimplemented_syntax_is_refused_by_name, and one more program in the_interpreter_calls_and_borrows_as_wasm_does.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZmKrYLDC4WHi2yt11u

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary: ❌ Failed

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-10T18:44:33.133529Z	6678a3e	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	❌ Failed 2026-11-10T18:41:59.883621Z We couldn’t complete this review. Comment @codex security review to try again.	6678a3e	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

This security review couldn’t start because the paying account has exhausted its Codex allowance and has insufficient available credits. The payer can check their balance and add credits in the Codex usage dashboard, then try again. If you do not manage the paying account, contact this repository's admins.