Also, this commit makes `apply_term` automatically re-intern the
program since it isn't safe to apply any term onto a UPLC program. In
particular, terms that introduce new let-bindings (via lambdas) will
mess with the already generated DeBruijn indices.
The problem doesn't occur for pure constant terms like Data. So we
still have a safe and fast version 'apply_data' when needed.
This allows for a more fine-grained control over how the traces are showed. Now users can instrument the compiler to preserve only their user-defined traces, or the only the compiler, or all, or none. We also want to add another trace level on top of that: 'compact' to only show line numbers; which will work for both user-defined and/or compiler-generated traces.
We rely on some errors to just bubble up and get printed.
By matching on result at the top level like this we blocked some
error messages from being able to be printed. For me this showed up
when `cargo run -- new thing/thing` printed nothing even when there
was an existing `thing` folder. It has already been the pattern for
sometime for some subcommands to handle calling process::exit(1) in
situations where it needs to handle error reporting more specially. It
may seem lame, hacky, or repetitive but it's easy to maintain and read.
Also removed the 'clear' flag to do it by default instead of clogging
the terminal view.
This now works pretty nicely, and the logic is back under
`aiken_project`.
Rather than have this logic in the aiken binary, this provides a generic
mechanism to do "something" on file change events. KtorZ is going to
handle wiring it up to the CLI in the best way for the project.
I tried to write some tests for this, but it's hard to isolate the
watcher logic without wrestling with the borrow checker, or overly
neutering this utility.
This adds the following command
```
aiken watch
```
There are some open questions to answer, though:
- I really like the ergonomics of `aiken watch`; but it also makes sense
as a flag to `aiken check` or `aiken build` etc.; should we just
support the flag, the command, or both?
- Right now I duplicated the with_project method, because it forces
process::exit(1); Should we refactor this, and if so, how?
- Are there other configuration options we want?
There's really no scenario where we want to generate boilerplate that
always end up being removed. In particular, the boilerplate breaks
tutorial as it generate conflicting validators in the blueprint.
The only argument in favor of the boilerplate is to serve as example
and show people some syntax reminder. However, this is better done in
the README or on the user manual directly.
KtorZ