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!)
Backed by Data.IOArray. Also moved the array external primitives to a
separate module Data.IOArray.Prims, since the next step is to add a
linear bounded array type where the bounds checks are done at compile
time, so we'll want to read and write without bounds likes.
Having unsolved holes in a 'core' library unneccessarily pollutes the list of holes shown to the user.
Thus, having unfilled holes in a 'core' library is not right.
These constructs can be re-added once the holes have been filled in.
Meaning that the FFI is aware of it, so you can send arbitrary byte data
to foreign calls. Fixes#209
This means that we no longer need the hacky way of reading and writing
binary data via scheme, so can have a more general interface for reading
and writing buffer data in files.
It will also enable more interesting high level interfaces to binary
data, with C calls being used where necessary.
Note that the Buffer primitive are unsafe! They always have been, of
course... so perhaps (later) they should have 'unsafe' as part of their
name and better high level safe interfaces on top.
This requires updating the scheme to support Buffer as an FFI primitive,
but shouldn't affect Idris2-boot which loads buffers its own way.
The old way only worked by chance, because the argumemt order happens to
be the same in all cases. I noticed due to some experiments elsewhere
with different ways of elaborating case, which broke that assumption.
The meaning of the list of Vars is actually the opposite of what it was
taken to be... fortunately, the performance works out roughly the same.
Also this way is (arguably) simpler, which is usually a good sign.
Including appropriate casts, and Num/Eq/Ord/Show implementations.
Also includes new primitives in Data.Buffer, and calls to foreign
functions in C as 'unsigned'.
This means it abstracts over the value syntactically, rather than by
value, and can significantly speed up elaboration where large types are
involved, at a cost of being less general. Try it if "with" is slow.
There are more flags we want on with (well, at least one: "proof")
This was taking too long, and adding too many things, because it was
going too deep in the name of having everything accessible at the REPL
and for the compiler. So, it's done a bit differently now, only chasing
everything on a "full" load (i.e., final load at the REPL)
This has some effects:
+ As systems get bigger, load time gets better (on my machine, checking
Idris.Main now takes 52s from scratch, down from 76s)
+ You might find import errors that you didn't previously get, because
things were being imported that shouldn't have been. The new way is
correct!
An unfortunate effect is that sometimes you end up getting "undefined
name" errors even if you didn't explicitly use the name, because
sometimes a module uses a name from another module in a type, which then
gets exported, and eventually needs to be reduced. This mostly happens
because there is a compile time check that should be done which I
haven't implemented yet. That is, public export definitions should only
be allowed to use names that are also public export. I'll get to this
soon.
Still a couple of things to resolve in coverage and totality checking
before we can switch on %default, so don't expect quite the right
behaviour just yet. More progress though!
Also working on this has caught a few totality errors in the Idris 2
code base that Idris 1 missed... so these are fixed on the way.
Racket appears to have a different notion of current directory than the
system does, so we need to tell it which directory we think we're in
when reading and writing bytevectors using the scheme file functions.
