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.
Clash in a reflection test due to conflicting merges. I'd like to find a
way to make the internally generated numbers not matter here (and
elsewhere) but I don't see an obvious way.
Fixes#116. This is the solution Idris 1 took, and while it is a special
case, the syntax does make it explicit (in a way) that the result of the
case is unused - if you mean something other than (), you must now say
so!
helps with readability since these, especially named-IPi, come up a lot
didn't change everything that could need it like PiInfo or BindMode
PiInfo rarely has DefImplicit (so far) and BindMode hasn't come up a lot (so far)
reduced indentation for TTImp Show implementation
Another one from the "stop trying to be clever" files :). Instead of a
continuation for fallthrough in the evaluator, be explicit about whether
there's a result, no match, or evaluation is stuck.
Fixes#70
When instantiating a term, we had an attempt at an optimisation that
assumed variables would be in scope order. But it's not safe to make
that assumption, and it turns out it makes no measurable difference to
performance anyway.
Instead of using a raw name, which is error prone, use a Var so we have
a proper reference into the environment. This is important when we're
combining case blocks and where clauses, because we need to rebuild the
environment properly for calls to functions defined in the where block.
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.
This is quite fiddly as it the blocks might be in different contexts so
we need to keep track of which variables correspond in the scrutinees of
the blocks. Once that's done, check the terms at the leaves convert,
then check the corresponding variables convert.
This may not be perfect yet, because we only look at case scrutinees to
find correspondence. It might also be a bit slower than it could be, but
at least these checks are quite rare.
Fixes#208 and maybe some others?
