It's not expected to stay that way forever, but some additional effort will be required for them to preserve (or restore) types; until then, be safe and don't forward possibly incorrect information.
This version of OCaml introduces [let-punning](https://v2.ocaml.org/manual/bindingops.html#ss:letops-punning)
It is just syntactic sugar, but OCamlformat makes use of it, without a configuration option, when the OCaml version permits.
This means that the same version of OCamlformat gives different results depending on the underlying OCaml version. Our options, if we want to keep the forced-format policy on the repository, are therefore:
- to disable it whenever binding operators are used (with this PR that's a lot of places, and this becomes too cumbersome, besides defeating the purpose)
- to force devs to use an earlier version of OCaml so that reformatting outputs something compatible
- to bump the minimum OCaml requirement
The latter is the simplest, but it can be reviewed if compatibility is required. Last option would be to report the issue to OCamlformat and hope that they provide a workaround...
The AST structures track annotations (e.g., at the moment, source code
position information) in a lot of places. This patch tidies up a bit and
removes some duplication, ensuring a single level of annotation wrapping
at each AST recursion level.
This will be important when adding type information in these
annotations, because there will be consitency constraints to be ensured
and duplication is a likely source of mistakes.
this patch is just a bunch of `sed` commands
```shell
cd compiler
sed -i 's/Pos.marked/Marked.pos/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos.unmark/Marked.unmark/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos\.get_position/Marked.get_mark/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos\.same_pos_as/Marked.same_mark_as/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos\.map_under_mark/Marked.map_under_mark/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos\.mark/Marked.mark/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
sed -i 's/Pos\.compare_marked/Marked.compare/g' *.ml* **/*.ml*
```
Closes#208 (implementing Solution 1, without adding an explicit syntax)
Two exceptions or more, e.g. `(j1 |- c1)` and `(j2 |- c2)` such that `c1
= c2`, are collapsed by this transformation into `((j1 |- c1) | j2 |-
c2)`, introducing an arbitrary precedence that avoids the conflict.
The transormation is not applied if any exceptions apply to the subterms
themselves: while these exceptions could be merged, that would turn more
conflicts into arbitrary outcomes than wanted.
