it's not very satisfying, but we make it pass through renaming for now. A better
approach could be to make this special handling structural, or to have something
more specific than an id to hold onto.
in particular, this avoids regression with reused struct fields getting renamed
with indices, which would have required changes in e.g.
`french_law/ocaml/bench.ml`
Previously we had some heuristics in the backends trying to achieve this with a
lot of holes ; this should be much more solid, relying on `Bindlib` to do the
correct renamings.
**Note1**: it's not plugged into the backends other than OCaml at the moment.
**Note2**: the related, obsolete heuristics haven't been cleaned out yet
**Note3**: we conservatively suppose a single namespace at the moment. This is
required for e.g. Python, but it forces vars named like struct fields to be
renamed, which is more verbose in e.g. OCaml. The renaming engine could be
improved to support different namespaces, with a way to select how to route the
different kinds of identifiers into them.
Similarly, customisation for what needs to be uppercase or lowercase is not
available yet.
**Note4**: besides excluding keywords, we should also be careful to exclude (or
namespace):
- the idents used in the runtime (e.g. `o_add_int_int`)
- the dynamically generated idents (e.g. `embed_*`)
**Note5**: module names themselves aren't handled yet. The reason is that they
must be discoverable by the user, and even need to match the filenames, etc. In
other words, imagine that `Mod` is a keyword in the target language. You can't
rename a module called `Mod` to `Mod1` without knowing the whole module context,
because that would destroy the mapping for a module already called `Mod1`.
A reliable solution would be to translate all module names to e.g.
`CatalaModule_*`, which we can assume will never conflict with any built-in, and
forbid idents starting with that prefix. We may also want to restrict their
names to ASCII ? Currently we use a projection, but what if I have two modules
called `Là` and `La` ?
There are no users at the moment, so we won't be actively maintaining it.
If and when the need arises again, we can revert this commit and resurrect it.
This case is really acrobatic, because we are interfacing code compiled to
OCaml (from lcalc) with code from dcalc, and the two have a different
representation for default terms. It... seems to work though.
A more reasonable solution, if there are problems with this or it reveals too
fragile, would be to enforce interpreting at the lcalc level as soon as you want
to link compiled modules.
HandleExceptions only takes an array of exceptions, and returns Some if only one
of them is Some, None if they are all None, or raises a conflict error
otherwise.
The compilation of default terms then wraps this in a match (for the result of
HandleExceptions), and an if-then-else (for the justification-consequence in the
None case).
This avoids the complexity of having to handle thunked functions as arguments.
*Disclaimer*: This is intended for discussion
My impression is that the with-exceptions backend is to be superseded by the
without-exception backend, which is more general and more efficient. Therefore,
seeing the added complexity of maintaining the two in parallel, I see no good
reason to keep the with-exceptions version now that the equivalence of their
semantics have been proved.
It will also be nice to reduce divergences between the different backends ; and
this should make further simplifications possible (e.g. some thunkings may no
longer be needed)
Of course I am ready to hear arguments in favor of keeping it, be it in the mid-
or long-term.
This patch removes the `--avoid-exceptions` flag, making it the only option, and
the corresponding `with_exceptions` variant of the dcalc->lcalc translation. It
doesn't do further simplifications.
- more recent sedlex fixes a bug that needed a workaround in our code
- we need recent dates_calc to avoid extra runtime dependency on `Str` that our
build system won't handle
Not much there at the moment, but being able to specify the include directories
is already pretty useful to run clerk directly e.g. on `catala-examples`.
(you had to explicitely specify variable `CATALA_INCLUDE`, the `-I` flags or to
go through `make` without that)
This relies less on specific color flags of GNU diff, and reformats and
colorises the output.
(it may still depend on the specific layout of GNU diff with the `-y` flag
though)
First I was disappointed that we couldn't convert closure environment properly
because of their opaque nature (native/interpreted conversion is based on the
Catala types) ; but after more thought it's actually unnecessary to convert them
at all since we are guaranteed that they can't be consumed outside of their
realm.
it's much simpler to handle down the line if they have a uniform structure;
empty tuples are easily converted into unit types when translating to OCaml.
This avoids differences in test results depending on wether closure conversion
is enabled or not: the functional values within structure are a different type
internally but with this patch they are printed the same.
Support for manipulating toplevel functions as values was buggy, because the
recursion after eta-expansion would fall into the pattern for a `let..in` and
not do the expected transformation.
The patch explicitely builds the closure in that case, avoiding such issues with
recursion.
