Add the ExprBuiltin Expr type to the AST

Certain desugaring schemes may require the parser to use some builtin
function to do some of the work (e.g. currently `throw` is used to
lazily cause an error if a `<>`-style path is not in the search path)
Unfortunately, these names are not reserved keywords, so an expression
that uses such a syntactic sugar will not see the expected behavior
(see tests/lang/eval-okay-redefine-builtin.nix for an example).

This adds the ExprBuiltin AST type, which when evaluated uses the value
from the rootmost variable scope (which of course is initialized
internally and can't shadow any of the builtins).

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>
Dynamic attrs

This adds new syntax for attribute names:

* attrs."${name}" => getAttr name attrs
* attrs ? "${name}" => isAttrs attrs && hasAttr attrs name
* attrs."${name}" or def => if attrs ? "${name}" then attrs."${name}" else def
* { "${name}" = value; } => listToAttrs [{ inherit name value; }]

Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that. The attribute chains
can be arbitrarily long and contain combinations of static and dynamic
parts (e.g. attrs."${foo}".bar."${baz}" or qux), which is relatively
straightforward for the getAttrs/hasAttrs cases but is more complex for
the listToAttrs case due to rules about duplicate attribute definitions.

For attribute sets with dynamic attribute names, duplicate static
attributes are detected at parse time while duplicate dynamic attributes
are detected when the attribute set is forced. So, for example, { a =
null; a.b = null; "${"c"}" = true; } will be a parse-time error, while
{ a = {}; "${"a"}".b = null; c = true; } will be an eval-time error
(technically that case could theoretically be detected at parse time,
but the general case would require full evaluation). Moreover, duplicate
dynamic attributes are not allowed even in cases where they would be
with static attributes ({ a.b.d = true; a.b.c = false; } is legal, but {
a."${"b"}".d = true; a."${"b"}".c = false; } is not). This restriction
might be relaxed in the future in cases where the static variant would
not be an error, but it is not obvious that that is desirable.

Finally, recursive attribute sets with dynamic attributes have the
static attributes in scope but not the dynamic ones. So rec { a = true;
"${"b"}" = a; } is equivalent to { a = true; b = true; } but rec {
"${"a"}" = true; b = a; } would be an error or use a from the
surrounding scope if it exists.

Note that the getAttr, getAttr or default, and hasAttr are all
implemented purely in the parser as syntactic sugar, while attribute
sets with dynamic attribute names required changes to the AST to be
implemented cleanly.

This is an alternative solution to and closes #167

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>
Fold dynamic binds handling into addAttr

Since addAttr has to iterate through the AttrPath we pass it, it makes
more sense to just iterate through the AttrNames in addAttr instead. As
an added bonus, this allows attrsets where two dynamic attribute paths
have the same static leading part (see added test case for an example
that failed previously).

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>
Don't use any syntactic sugar for dynamic attrs

This doesn't change any functionality but moves some behavior out of the
parser and into the evaluator in order to simplify the code.

Signed-off-by: Shea Levy <shea@shealevy.com>
Merge branch 'dynamic-attrs-no-sugar' of github.com:shlevy/nix