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.
L'[arrêté du 16 août 2022 relatif au calcul des aides personnelles au logement et de l'aide à l'accession sociale et à la sortie de l'insalubrité spécifique à l'outre-mer](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000046204011) indique une revalorisation de certains paramètres du calcul des aides au logement au 1er juillet 2022. Cette PR reflète les changements dans le code de la calculette Catala des aides au logement, et fait suite à la première partie de la revalorisation (#305).
The files where manually generated through Makefile rules, and
versionned (with an outdated version).
The issue was that we had:
- `dune` building Catala
- Makefiles calling `catala` to build and copy the `french_law/ocaml/law_source`
files
- then `dune` again to build `french_law`
The result was that `dune build` (without running `make` first) would
return a weird error.
The proposed solution adds ad-hoc dune rules to call the catala
binary, so that it can handle the whole pipeline correctly. If OCaml
is purely a backend, though, a simpler solution that makes us less
dependent on dune would be to handle the compilation of `french_law`
manually.
The dune rules are set to 'promote' the files so that it preserves the
fact that they are versionned (but with no confusion of the build system
about where they should come from anymore)
