[luisleo526]

Built-in calls now bind named arguments by the parameter's name instead of failing in the generated C++.

• math.pow(base=..., exponent=...), mixed positional-then-named calls and reversed named order now compile and produce the same value as the positional form.
• A name that TradingView rejects for a built-in (for example exp= on math.pow) is refused at its source location with a catalog diagnostic, as TradingView refuses it.
• New tests cover keyword binding, the generic path over the built-in registry, and the signature table.

Compiling scripts that do not use named built-in arguments are unchanged.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[graphify-labs]

Graphify reviewed this change.

Worth a look — the grounded gate found no coupling regressions or blocking issues, but 1 advisory finding(s) below merit a look before merge.

Not checked: tests were not run; formal verification proved 0 of 10 changed function(s) (1 sampled, not proven, 9 not verified).

Formal verification. PR-changed functions: 1/10 verified (0 proven, 1 may-equivalent, 0 distinguished) · 9 not verified (3 vacuous, 6 unsupported).

Not verified on this run: \_build\_security\_math\_call (unsupported), \_resolve\_func\_args (unsupported), \_visit\_func\_call (unsupported), \_visit\_math\_call (unsupported), \_visit\_str\_call (unsupported), \_parse\_call\_args (vacuous: never exercised), \_func (vacuous: never exercised), \_math (vacuous: never exercised), \_visit\_FuncCall (unsupported).

---

Graphify review — findings

Adds keyword-name validation for registry builtins marked keyword_names_verified, so an unknown keyword reports PF-E2027 at the keyword instead of being silently dropped. The names are checked by the support checker before lowering and again in _merge_kwargs, which now accepts the intrinsic record from the math, str, time, timestamp, request and generic-signature call paths; records without the flag keep their existing binding. math.pow now declares base, exponent so both named forms emit the positional expression, and argument ordering stays under the separate PF-E2074 check.

Worth a look

• Unknown-keyword validation only runs in SupportChecker, so check_support=False silently accepts bad kwargs — pineforge_codegen/support_checker.py:1639 · Escalate · medium
  • NOT verified (no proof, no reproducing execution) — needs human review

Analysis details — impact, health, verification

Impact & health

Graphify review

Impact — 4326 functions depend on the 1181 functions this change touches.

Health — this change adds coupling hotspots:

• new: intrinsic_keyword_diagnostics() — 3 callers, 4 callees
• new: test_shared_parameter_names_resolve_each_callable_record() — 0 callers, 6 callees

Verification — 4326 functions in the blast radius were not formally verified this run (proofs are advisory here).

Gate & verification

graphify gate

PASS — objectively clean (no health regressions, tests not run — proofs not run this pass (advisory)). Grounded, not self-assessed.

Advisory (not blocking):

• verification_scope: 3731 function(s) in the blast radius were not formally verified this run

Cross-repo impact

Cross-repo impact

No cross-repo impact detected among the indexed peer repo(s).

1 peer repo(s) in this group are not yet indexed — cross-repo impact may be incomplete.

Cross-repo linkage is derived (SCIP-moniker matches are sound; name/contract matches are heuristic) and ADVISORY — it never affects this check's conclusion.

Formal verification

Could not verify: Could not verify \_build\_security\_math\_call.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_build\_security\_math\_call, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

No difference found (not proven): No behavior difference found in \_merge\_kwargs (not a proof).

The verifier ran both versions of \_merge\_kwargs on many inputs and saw identical behavior every time. Strong evidence the change is safe, but evidence, not a proof.

Guarantee: Empirical: differential testing (both versions run on many generated inputs). A divergence on an untested input remains possible, so this is 'no counterexample found', not 'proven equivalent'.

Note: An input the sampler did not try could still differ.

Could not verify: Could not verify \_resolve\_func\_args.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_resolve\_func\_args, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_visit\_func\_call.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_visit\_func\_call, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_visit\_math\_call.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_visit\_math\_call, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_visit\_str\_call.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_visit\_str\_call, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_parse\_call\_args.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_parse\_call\_args, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: not verifiable: all 3 sampled inputs raised on both versions — the function never executed, so 'no divergence' would be vacuous (mostly __init__ raised on the synthesized receiver args — names the real obstacle, not a sampling gap)

Could not verify: Could not verify \_func.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_func, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: not verified: a runtime divergence was observed, but the two versions' package snapshots loaded differently in the sandbox (old: {'fallback': {'pineforge_codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.base': 'ModuleNotFoundError'}, 'missing': ['pineforge_codegen.codegen.emit_top', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.input', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.security', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.ta', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.types', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_call', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_expr', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_stmt']}, new: {'fallback': {'pineforge_codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.base': 'ModuleNotFoundError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.collection_history': 'ModuleNotFoundError'}, 'missing': ['pineforge_codegen.codegen.emit_top', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.history_sharing', 'pineforge_codegen\…

Could not verify: Could not verify \_math.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_math, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: not verified: a runtime divergence was observed, but the two versions' package snapshots loaded differently in the sandbox (old: {'fallback': {'pineforge_codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.base': 'ModuleNotFoundError'}, 'missing': ['pineforge_codegen.codegen.emit_top', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.input', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.security', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.ta', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.types', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_call', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_expr', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.visit_stmt']}, new: {'fallback': {'pineforge_codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen': 'ImportError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.base': 'ModuleNotFoundError', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.collection_history': 'ModuleNotFoundError'}, 'missing': ['pineforge_codegen.codegen.emit_top', 'pineforge_codegen.codegen.history_sharing', 'pineforge_codegen\…

Could not verify: Could not verify \_visit\_FuncCall.

The verifier did not have enough to check \_visit\_FuncCall, so it is saying so rather than guessing. No false assurance is the whole point.

Guarantee: No guarantee either way, this is an honest abstention, not a pass.

Note: Reason: method — first parameter is `self`, which needs a constructed instance (not synthesizable)

· 2 grounded finding(s) anchored inline below.

[graphify-labs]

⚠️ Health regression — intrinsic_keyword_diagnostics()

high coupling complexity (Ca·Ce = 12).

Grounded coupling-delta finding (deterministic), not an LLM guess.

[graphify-labs]

⚠️ Health regression — test_shared_parameter_names_resolve_each_callable_record()

fans out to 6 callees (efferent coupling).

Grounded coupling-delta finding (deterministic), not an LLM guess.