Having the data's schema be optional at the level of the 'Schema' did not allow to represent cases where there would be an opaque data at an arbitrary nesting. So I introduced a new variant 'Opaque' on 'Data' to fill that gap.
These functions relied on the same dependency and had the same scope. So insertion was by encounter rather than order determined by dependency handling. Now we switched to dependency order is prioritized to prevent free unique.
-Builitins IR now acts like Record IR in terms of argument consumption
-UnConstrData returns as Pair(Data,Data) to conform with how pairs are treated behind the scenes.
This has been removed from the CIP-0057 specification since validators
are often re-used for multiple purposes (especially validators with
arity 2). It's misleading to assign a validator a purpose since the
purpose distinction actually happens _within_ the validator itself.
This has been bothering me and the more I thought of it the more I
disliked the idea of a warning. The rationale being that in this very
context, there's absolutely no ambiguity. So it is only frustrating
that the parser is even able to make the exact suggestion of what
should be fixed, but still fails.
I can imagine it is going to be very common for people to type:
```
trace "foo"
```
...yet terribly frustrating if they have to remember each time that
this should actually be a string. Because of the `trace`, `todo` and
`error` keywords, we know exactly the surrounding context and what to
expect here. So we can work it nicely.
However, the formatter will re-format it to:
```
trace @"foo"
```
Just for the sake of remaining consistent with the type-system. This
way, we still only manipulate `String` in the AST, but we conveniently
parse a double-quote utf-8 literal when coupled with one of the
specific keywords.
I believe that's the best of both worlds.
This will probably save people minutes/hours of puzzled debugging. This is only a warning because there may be cases where one do actually want to specify an hex-encoded bytearray. In which case, they can get rid of the warning by using the plain bytearray syntax (i.e. as an array of bytes).
rvcas