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.
I'm playing with some linear structures and finding these useful a lot,
so good to have a consistent syntax for it. '#' is chosen because it's
short, looks a bit like a cross if you look at it from the right angle
(!) and so as not to clash with '@@' in preorder reasoning syntax.
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.
This involves new primitives GCPtr and GCAnyPtr which are pointer types
that have finalisers attached. The finalisers are run when the
associated pointer goes out of scope.
In the test, I am assuming that the GC will only be called once, right
at the end. Otherwise, the output isn't guaranteed to be deterministic!
Let's see how this assumption holds...
This is currently Chez only. I think it'll be easy enough to add to
the Racket and Gambit back ends too.
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.
