feat: distinguish highlight for function symbol and normal var symbol

[shruti2522]

1. Does this PR affect any open issues?(Y/N) and add issue references (e.g. "fix #123", "re #123".):

• N
• Y
  fix [Enhancement] Distinguish the highlight of function symbol and normal var symbol #1378

2. What is the scope of this PR (e.g. component or file name):

kclvm/sema/src/core/symbol.rs

3. Provide a description of the PR(e.g. more details, effects, motivations or doc link):

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Other

4. Are there any breaking changes?(Y/N) and describe the breaking changes(e.g. more details, motivations or doc link):

• N
• Y

5. Are there test cases for these changes?(Y/N) select and add more details, references or doc links:

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Benchmark (add benchmark stats below)
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• Other

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9352165444

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 121 of 196 (61.73%) changed or added relevant lines in 7 files are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 71.086%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
kclvm/sema/src/core/global_state.rs	20	21	95.24%
kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/document_symbol.rs	0	1	0.0%
kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/semantic_token.rs	4	6	66.67%
kclvm/sema/src/core/symbol.rs	77	148	52.03%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/semantic_token.rs	1	90.38%

Totals
Change from base Build 9349800499:	-0.02%
Covered Lines:	54991
Relevant Lines:	77358

---

💛 - Coveralls

[shruti2522]

• I have implemented highlight for builtin function calls:

• For lambda expression function calls, I modified the walk_call_expr to handle the function call as a FunctionSymbol. But they are still interpreted as value symbols. Do we need to modify the return type of lambda_expr to be interpreted as function symbol?

Can you please review the changes, @Peefy

[Peefy]

• I have implemented highlight for builtin function calls:

• For lambda expression function calls, I modified the walk_call_expr to handle the function call as a FunctionSymbol. But they are still interpreted as value symbols. Do we need to modify the return type of lambda_expr to be interpreted as function symbol?

Can you please review the changes, @Peefy

Thanks. @He1pa and @Peefy will review it.

[He1pa]

• I have implemented highlight for builtin function calls:

• For lambda expression function calls, I modified the walk_call_expr to handle the function call as a FunctionSymbol. But they are still interpreted as value symbols. Do we need to modify the return type of lambda_expr to be interpreted as function symbol?

Can you please review the changes, @Peefy

no, you need to update the lambda expr to a function symbol first, then update call expr, e.g.,

func = lambda x: int, y: int -> int {
    x + y
}
a = func(1, 1)  # 2

you need to update the symbol func in line 1, and call expr func(1, 1) in line 4
So, maybe you need to update and walk_assign_stmt() in namer

kcl/kclvm/sema/src/namer/node.rs

Line 99 in c07925f

fn walk_assign_stmt(&mut self, assign_stmt: &'ctx ast::AssignStmt) -> Self::Result {

and walk_identifier_expr() in advanced_resolver

kcl/kclvm/sema/src/advanced_resolver/node.rs

Line 1074 in c07925f

pub fn walk_identifier_expr(

[shruti2522]

updated the assign_stmt in namer and resolve_names in identifier_expr to resolve lambda expressions

[Peefy]

@He1pa @shruti2522

I don't think we should call the corresponding syntax nodes such as walk_assign_stmt, walk_call, and walk_identifier_expr etc. It may not cover all cases, but it should be a semantically related function. I believe that simply based on SymbolKind::Value and function type, we can just do it here https://github.com/kcl-lang/kcl/blob/main/kclvm/tools/src/LSP/src/semantic_token.rs#L35

[Peefy]

PR conflicted.

[Peefy]

LGTM