The cheat-sheet still needs to be updated, I'll do that once we have a unified
syntax for function types and multiple arguments at the top-level and within
scopes.
... that's one less thing to do
Two notes:
- Updated the syntax errors in
examples/NSW_community_gaming/tests/test_nsw_social_housie.catala_en ; those
probably aren't expected though, but fixing them is outside my purpose here
- There is consensus on keeping the error messages in English; however, here,
the error messages include hints on the syntax to use, which are only valid
for users of the English syntax.
* A possible solution would be to apply cppo on parser.messages, using the
macros already defined in lexer_LANG.cppo.ml. However, we would then need to
tweak (or duplicate!) the parser to use the messages for the correct language.
Furthermore, updating and merging the file on parser updates would need
special care.
* Another, maybe easier solution would be manual processing, using a custom
escape in the parser messages and rewriting that at runtime when printing
the message. We would need to extract a runtime version of the macro
definitions though.
Using them will lead to "not supported yet" errors soon after, but it's a start
to get to handling separate modules.
The idea is that `foo` can now also be `Bar.foo`, `Bar.Baz.foo`, `foo.Struc.fld`
can be `foo.Bar.Baz.Struc.fld`, etc.
The next steps are to enable the lookups to handle this paths, and to provide
ways to load the external modules to feed these lookups.
Closes#373
This forbids expressions such as `a and b or c`, avoiding the need to set an
implicit priority between `and`, `or` and `xor`, which I find error-prone.
Instead, when that appears, a message asking for explicit parentheses will be
shown to the user.
Implementation note: since that would be extremely tedious to do in the parser
directly, the parser is set to allow right-associativity without discrimination
for the logical operators, and the check is done during desugaring. This
required to explicit parentheses in the surface AST to discriminate the case
where the priority was explicit.
Define a single expression rule with disambiguation using token priorities
instead of the many layers of intermediate rules with explicit sub-terms.
Also replaces `in` for collection operations (`x+1 for foo in [1;2]`) with
`among` which helps a lot.
When working through the tutorial, I was thrown off a bit by this minor typo. The typo made it look like the tax calculation was subtracting the $10,000 exception from above, as opposed to the $100,000 from the bracket.
it's unlikely to be used in any law, and likely to be cause for confusion.
best of all, the new operator has a different return type, which
ensures no inconsistency with the change can get overlooked.
Command used: `sed -i 's/\([-+*/><=]=\?\)[.$@^€$]/\1/g' **/*/*.catala_*`
The overload test, of course, is kept unchanged and ensures that explicit
operators still work.
Normally I would make sure this is not by default, or at leat disableable; but
here the code we print may contain utf8 anyway, so the terminal really needs to
support it. Anyway, it's just a little fancier, doesn't add much.
a quick fix for now, ideally we want an option for editor-friendly output.
But for now this is a very cheap way to at least have clickable error messages
which are a big time-saver.
I am not convinced about this, would there be a better place where to put it?
My worry is that it could get confusing and should not be presented as "another
way to define subscopes", but it ended up a bit verbose.
There is also no section yet on "let-in" definitions, so I did not use them in
the example.
