This makes the search for counterexample slower in some cases by 30-40% with the hope of finding better counterexamples. We might want to add a flag '--simplification-level' to the command-line to let users decide on the level of simplifications.
And move some logic out of project/lib to be near the CheckedModule
instead. The project API is already quite heavy and long, so making it
more lightweight is generally what we want to tend to.
This changes ensure that we only compile modules from dependencies
that are used (or transitively used) in the project. This allows to
discard entire compilation steps at a module level, for modules that
we do not use.
The main goal of this change isn't performances. It's about making
dependencies management slightly easier in the time we decide whether
and how we want to manage transitive dependencies in Aiken.
A concrete case here is aiken-lang/stdlib, which will soon depend on
aiken-lang/fuzz. However, we do not want to require every single
project depending on stdlib to also require fuzz. So instead, we want
to seggregate fuzz API from stdlib in separate module, and only
compile those if they appear in the pruned dependency graph.
While the goal isn't performances, here are some benchmarks analyzing
the performances of deps pruning on a simple project depends on a few
modules from stdlib:
Benchmark 1: ./aiken-without-deps-pruning check scratchpad
Time (mean ± σ): 190.3 ms ± 101.1 ms [User: 584.5 ms, System: 14.2 ms]
Range (min … max): 153.0 ms … 477.7 ms 10 runs
Benchmark 2: ./aiken-with-deps-pruning check scratchpad
Time (mean ± σ): 162.3 ms ± 46.3 ms [User: 572.6 ms, System: 14.0 ms]
Range (min … max): 142.8 ms … 293.7 ms 10 runs
As we can see, this change seems to have an overall positive impact on
the compilation time.
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.
is_assignment was a bit confusing to me since we do actually categorize expect as 'assignment'. So this is more about whether this is a *let* assignment. Hence 'is_let'.
Discard pattern are _dangerous_ is used recklessly. The problem comes
from maintenance and when adding new fields. We usually don't get any
compiler warnings which may lead to missing spots and confusing
behaviors.
So I have, in some cases, inline discard to explicitly list all
fields. That's a bit more cumbersome to write but hopefully will catch
a few things for us in the future.
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.
The 3rd kind of assignment kind (Bind) is gone and now reflected through a boolean parameter. Note that this parameter is completely erased by the type-checker so that the rest of the pipeline (i.e. code-generation) doesn't have to make any assumption. They simply can't see a backpassing let or expect.
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.
microproofs