In a 'Bind', normalise the result of the first action, rather than
quoting the HNF. This improves performance since the HNF could be quite
big when quoted back.
Ideally, we wouldn't have to quote and unquote here, and we can probably
achieve this by tinkering with the evaluator.
This has an unfortunate effect on the reflection002 test, in that the
"typed template Idris" example now evaluates too much. But, I think the
overall performance is too important for the primary motivation
behind elaborator reflection. I will return to this!
This is partly to tidy things up, but also a good test for 'import as'.
Requires some internal changes since there are parts of reflection,
unelaboration and a compiler hack that rely on where things are in the
Prelude.
This is helpful when defining auto-implicits of the form:
pairEqF : DecEq a
=> (thisX, x, y : a)
-> {prfRefl : Equal x thisX}
-> (prfEq : decEq x thisX = Yes prfRefl)
=> Pair a a
pairEqF thisX x y {prfRefl} {prfEq} = MkPair x y
before auto-implicit search would fail to find `Refl` for `prfRefl`.
With this fix the solution is found.
This fix means we can avoid having to write the following.
pairEqF' : DecEq a
=> (thisX, x, y : a)
-> (prfEq : decEq x thisX = Yes (the (Equal x x) Refl))
=> Pair a a
pairEqF' thisX x y {prfEq} = MkPair x y
This didn't cause a problem before as it was likely just ignored by the C
function. According to Edwin the extra argument is a leftover from when this
was a pure scheme call.
There is an argument that, for import public, this should be automatic
(that is, the publicly imported things should be reexported with the
parent namespace). I decided not to do this, because another use of
import public which we do a lot in the Idris 2 code base is purely as a
convenience, where we still expect things to be in their original
namespace.
Also, where there's a choice between things being explicit and implicit,
I prefer to err on the side of explicit now.
So, if what you really want in an API is to reexport, you can do that,
but explicitly.
The ports are rather straight forward and I have purposefully written
the documentation to be beginner friendly.
Note, I have diverged from Idris1 over the naming of the projection
functions to make them consistent with `Pair` and `DPair`.
Apparently the concrete syntax is controversial ("{apples}"
vs. "$oranges"), so I'm just adding a simple DYI version until we
agree on a concrete syntax
This involves updating the bootstrap code since it needs a fix in
interface resolution. It shouldn't affect the Idris2-boot build though,
since it's in the libraries not the Idris2 source.
It's worth delaying in case doing some more work (and some more
interface resolution) can make the type more concrete. This makes
test linear011 work more smoothly, and will help with this sort of
program in general.
A better way, later, would be to try elaborating and delay only if the
type is not yet known. We have the facilities, but it's too fiddly for
me to want to implement it right now...
We need to check below top level too, since there could be holes that
we're happy to resolve by searching. The linearity test added
illustrates a place where this is needed.
Doing this is awkward, for a number of reasons, including 'pure' not
being linear in its argument - there's no guarantee it'll be used
linearly after all - and lack of multiplicity polymorphism. Fortunately
the user doesn't have to know about the ugliness underneath!
We can look at ways to make it less horrible later :). For now, this is
starting to look like something that allows us to write linear protocols
without too much extra machinery on top of IO.
Conditional variables with timeout in Chez didn't work, so changed to a
consistent meaning of the timeout (microseconds). Also fix linearity of
unsafePerformIO.
Following a fairly detailed discussion on slack, the feeling is
generally that it's better to have a single interface. While precision
is nice, it doesn't appear to buy us anything here. If that turns out to
be wrong, or limiting somehow, we can revisit it later. Also:
- it's easier for backend authors if the type of IO operations is
slightly less restrictive. For example, if it's in HasIO, that limits
alternative implementations, which might be awkward for some
alternative back ends.
- it's one less extra detail to learn. This is minor, but there needs to
be a clear advantage if there's more detail to learn.
- It is difficult to think of an underlying type that can't have a Monad
instance (I have personally never encountered one - if they turns out
to exist, again, we can revisit!)
