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.
it seems we can fix this by changing which side
gets subtracted by 1 depending on the op associativity.
BinOp::Or & BinOp::And are right associative while the
other bin ops are left associative.
closes#893
Co-authored-by: Kasey White <kwhitemsg@gmail.com>
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.
