Before this commit, we would parse 'Pair' as a user-defined
data-types, and thus piggybacking on that whole record system. While
perhaps handy for some things, it's also semantically wrong and
induces a lot more complexity in codegen which now needs to
systematically distinguish every data-type access between pairs, and
others.
So it's better to have it as a separate expression, and handle it
similar to tuples (since it's fundamentally a 2-tuple with a special
serialization).
And a few more tests along the way for others. Note that it is important here that we try to parse for a 'Pair' BEFORE we try to parse for a constructor pattern. Because the latter would swallow any Pair pattern.
Currently, pattern-matching on 'Pair' is handled by treating Pair as a
record, which comes as slightly odd given that it isn't actually a
record and isn't user-defined. Thus now, every use of a record must
distinguish between Pairs and other kind of records -- which screams
for another variant constructor instead.
We cannot use `Tuple` either for this, because then we have no ways to
tell 2-tuples apart from pairs, which is the whole point here. So the
most sensical thing to do is to define a new pattern `Pair` which is
akin to tuples, but simpler since we know the number of elements and
it's always 2.
We have been a bit too strict on disallowing 'allow_cast' propagations. This is really only problematic for nested elements like Tuple's elements or App's args. However, for linked and unbound var it is probably okay, and it certainly is as well for function arguments.
it seems we can fix this by changing which side
gets subtracted by 1 depending on the op associativity.
BinOp::Or & BinOp::And are right associative while the
other bin ops are left associative.
closes#893
Co-authored-by: Kasey White <kwhitemsg@gmail.com>
KtorZ