This is mainly a syntactic trick/sugar, but it's been pretty annoying
to me for a while that we can't simply pattern-match/destructure
single-variant constructors directly from the args list. A classic
example is when writing property tests:
```ak
test foo(params via both(bytearray(), int())) {
let (bytes, ix) = params
...
}
```
Now can be replaced simply with:
```
test foo((bytes, ix) via both(bytearray(), int())) {
...
}
```
If feels natural, especially coming from the JavaScript, Haskell or
Rust worlds and is mostly convenient. Behind the scene, the compiler
does nothing more than re-writing the AST as the first form, with
pre-generated arg names. Then, we fully rely on the existing
type-checking capabilities and thus, works in a seamless way as if we
were just pattern matching inline.
This is the best we can do for this without
rearchitecting when we rewrite backpassing to
plain ol' assignments. In this case, if we see
a var and there is no annotation (thus probably not a cast),
then it's safe to rewrite to a `let` instead of an `expect`.
This way, we don't get a warning that is **unfixable**.
We are not trying to solve every little warning edge
case with this fix. We simply just can't allow there
to be a warning that the user can't make go away through
some means. All other edge cases like pattern matching on
a single contructor type with expect warnings can be fixed
via other means.
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.
Also slightly extended the check test 'framework' to allow registering side-dependency and using them from another module. This allows to check the interplay between opaque type from within and outside of their host module.
The main trick here was transforming Assignment
to contain `Vec<UntypedPattern, Option<Annotation>>`
in a field called patterns. This then meant that I
could remove the `pattern` and `annotation` field
from `Assignment`. The parser handles `=` and `<-`
just fine because in the future `=` with multi
patterns will mean some kind of optimization on tuples.
But, since we don't have that optimization yet, when
someone uses multi patterns with an `=` there will be an
error returned from the type checker right where `infer_seq`
looks for `backpassing`. From there the rest of the work
was in `Project::backpassing` where I only needed to rework
some things to work with a list of patterns instead of just one.
This is more holistic and less awkward than having monadic bind working only with some pre-defined type. Backpassing work with _any_ function, and can be implemented relatively easily by rewriting the AST on-the-fly.
Also, it is far easier to explain than trying to explain what a monadic bind is, how its behavior differs from type to type and why it isn't generally available for any monadic type.
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.
This improves error messages for `a |> b(x)`.
We need to do a special check when looping over the args
and unifying. This information is within a function that does not belong
to pipe typer so I used a closure to forward along a way to add
metadata to the error when the first argument in the loop has a
unification error. Simply adding the metadata at the pipe typer
level is not good enough because then we may annotate regular
unification errors from the args.
When rendering missing or redundant patterns, linked-list would
wrongly suggest the last nil constructor as a pattern on non-empty
list.
For example, before this commit, the exhaustivness checker would yield:
```
[(_, True), []]
```
as a suggestion, for being the result of being a list pattern with a
single argument being `(_, True) :: Nil`. Blindly following the
compiler suggestion here would cause a type unification error (since
`[]` doesn't unify with a 2-tuple).
Indeed, we mustn't render the Nil constructor when rendering non-empty
lists! So the correct suggestion should be:
```
[(_, True)]
```
KtorZ