Somehow, miette doesn't play well with spans when using chars indices.
So we have to count the number of bytes in strings / chars, so that
spans align accordingly.
Nothing to see here as they all have the same signature. Implementing
arithmetic bin-operators and boolean logic operators will require some
more logic.
This is simply a syntactic sugar which desugarize to a function call with two arguments mapped to the specified binary operator.
Only works for '>' at this stage as a PoC, extending to all binop in the next commit.
Params being unused were being incorrectly reported.
This was because params need to be initialized
at a scope above both the validator functions. This
manifested when using a multi-validator where one of
the params was not used in both validators.
The easy fix was to add a field called
`is_validator_param` to `ArgName`. Then
when infering a function we don't initialize args
that are validator params. We now handle this
in a scope that is created before in the match branch for
validator in the `infer_definition` function. In there
we call `.in_new_scope` and initialize params for usage
detection.
And disable multi-patterns clauses. I was originally just controlling
whether we did disable that from the parser but then I figured we
could actually support multi-patterns clauses quite easily by simply
desugaring a multi-pattern into multiple clauses.
This is only a syntactic sugar, which means that the cost of writing
that on-chain is as expensive as writing the fully expanded form; yet
it seems like a useful shorthand; especially for short clause
expressions.
This commit however disables multi-pattern when clauses, which we do
not support in the code-generation. Instead, one pattern on tuples for
that.
Rules are now as follows:
- If a pipeline contains a newline, then the entire pipeline is formatted over multiple lines.
- If it doesn't, then it's formatted as a single-line UNLESS it cannot fit; in which case, we fallback to multiline again.
The core observation is that **in the context of Aiken** (i.e. on-chain logic)
people do not generally want to use String. Instead, they want
bytearrays.
So, it should be easy to produce bytearrays when needed and it should
be the default. Before this commit, `"foo"` would parse as a `String`.
Now, it parses as a `ByteArray`, whose bytes are the UTF-8 bytes
encoding of "foo".
Now, to make this change really "fool-proof", we now want to:
- [ ] Emit a parse error if we parse a UTF-8 bytearray literal in
place where we would expect a `String`. For example, `trace`,
`error` and `todo` can only be followed by a `String`.
So when we see something like:
```
trace "foo"
```
we know it's a mistake and we can suggest users to use:
```
trace @"foo"
```
instead.
- [ ] Emit a warning if we ever see a bytearray literals UTF-8, which
is either 56 or 64 character long and is a valid hexadecimal string.
For example:
```
let policy_id = "29d222ce763455e3d7a09a665ce554f00ac89d2e99a1a83d267170c6"
```
This is _most certainly_ a mistake, as this generates a ByteArray of
56 bytes, which is effectively the hex-encoding of the provided string.
In this scenario, we want to warn the user and inform them they probably meant to use:
```
let policy_id = #"29d222ce763455e3d7a09a665ce554f00ac89d2e99a1a83d267170c6"
```
Todo is fundamentally just a trace and an error. The only reason we kept it as a separate element in the AST is for the formatter to work out whether it should format something back to a todo or something else.
However, this introduces redundancy in the code internally and makes the AIR more complicated than it needs to be. Both todo and errors can actually be represented as trace + errors, and we only need to record their preferred shape when parsing so that we can format them back to what's expected.
We now parse errors as a combination of a trace plus and error term. This is a baby step in order to simplify the code generation down the line and the internal representation of todo / errors.
This however enforces that the argument unifies to a `String`. So this
is more flexible than the previous form, but does fundamentally the
same thing.
Fixes#378.
Whoopsie... || and && were treated with the same precedence, causing very surprising behavior down the line.
I noticed this because of the auto-formatter adding parenthesis where it really shouldn't. The problem came actually from the parser and how it constructed the AST.
Weirdly enough, we got the parsing wrong for byte literals in expressions (but did okay in constants). But got the formatting wrong in constants (yet did okay for formatting expressions). I've factored out the code in both cases to avoid the duplication that led to this in the first place. Plus added test coverage to make sure this doesn't happen in the future.
With pretty parse errors on failures. The type-checker was already
implemented for those, so it now only requires some work in the code
generation.
Fixes#297.
Somehow missed it when reworking tuples. We need to allow the new
'NewLineLeftParen' token in this situation as well. Especially because
this is what the formatter outputs.
This possibly breaks many Aiken programs out there, but it's for the
best. We haven't released the alpha yet so we still have a bit of
freedom when it comes to breaking change.
Plus, the migration path is easy, simply run:
```
find . -name "*.ak" | xargs sed -i "s/#(/(/g"
```
(or `-i ''` on MacOS).
This changes allow to use parenthesis `(` `)` to encapsulate
expressions in addition to braces `{` `}` used to define blocks.
The main use-case is for arithmetic and boolean expressions for which
developers are used to using parenthesis. For example:
```
{ 14 + 42 } * 1337
```
can now be written as:
```
( 14 + 42 ) * 1337
```
This may sound straightforward at first but wasn't necessarily trivial
in Aiken given that (a) everything is an expression, (b) whitespaces
do not generally matter and (c) there's no symbol indicating the end
of a 'statement' (because there's no statement).
Thus, we have to properly disambiguate between:
```
let foo = bar(14 + 42)
```
and
```
let foo = bar
(14 + 42)
```
Before this commit, the latter would be interpreted as a function call
and would lead to a somewhat puzzling error. Now, the newline serves
as a delimiting symbol. The trade-off being that for a function call,
the left parenthesis has to be on the same line as the function name
identifier -- which is a fair trade off. So this is still allowed:
```
let foo = bar(
14 + 42
)
```
As there's very little ambiguity about it.
This fixes#236 and would seemingly allow us to get rid of the leading
`#` in front of tuples.
KtorZ