Skip to content

[ refactor ] ScopedSnocList: Swap Scope on SnocList (Phase 2) #3513

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

[ refactor ] ScopedSnocList: Swap Scope on SnocList (Phase 2) #3513

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor

@GulinSS GulinSS commented Mar 19, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Introduces the actual swap of List on SnocList for Scope.

Should this change go in the CHANGELOG?

  • If this is a fix, user-facing change, a compiler change, or a new paper
    implementation, I have updated CHANGELOG_NEXT.md (and potentially also
    CONTRIBUTORS.md).

@GulinSS GulinSS mentioned this pull request Mar 19, 2025
Closed
1 task
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from 2a9fa0b to b68532b Compare March 24, 2025 17:15
@GulinSS GulinSS mentioned this pull request Mar 25, 2025
Open
@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Mar 25, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@spcfox prepared a report of building packages.

TLDR; all builds reached complete step of compilation. 🎉

@GulinSS GulinSS mentioned this pull request Apr 3, 2025
Merged
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch 4 times, most recently from bed6788 to ff61ad5 Compare April 21, 2025 13:29
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from ff61ad5 to 9367788 Compare May 12, 2025 11:42
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from 9367788 to 5278b55 Compare June 3, 2025 07:20
@GulinSS GulinSS marked this pull request as ready for review June 3, 2025 07:22
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from 33f2799 to 749fa54 Compare June 5, 2025 07:16
@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Jun 5, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@mjustus
@gallais

Kindly asking for the review! 🙏

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Jun 5, 2025

Be aware that it may take a while!

Next week is the TYPES conference
The week after that is the CALCO/MFPS joint conferences

We may be able to meet after that but then annual leave may kick in (I'll be away late June to early July).

@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from 749fa54 to c128cdf Compare July 8, 2025 07:25
GulinSS and others added 3 commits July 17, 2025 16:44
@GulinSS @spcfox
[ refactor ] ScopedSnocList: Swap Scope on SnocList (Phase 2)
22ee454 
Co-authored-by: Viktor Yudov <[email protected]>
@GulinSS @spcfox
[ refactor ] Refactor and optimize CaseBuilder (#16)
23e11b1 
* [ refactor ] Replace `rev` with `reverse` and make `LengthMatch` arguments erased

* [ refactor ] Move `embed'` definition into `FreelyEmbeddable` implementation

* [ refactor ] Optimize `mkPatClause.mkNames` in `CaseBuilder`

* [ refactor ] Swap parameters of `NamedPats`

* [ refactor ] Remove `snoc` for `NamedPats`

* [ refactor ] Use `List` for forward order in `CaseBuilder.idr`

* [ refactor ] Swap the arguments of `PatClause`, `Group` and `ScoredPats` like `NamedPats`

* [ refactor ] Merge simillar cases in `nextNames'` and `mkNames`

* [ cleanup ] Remove redudant functions

Cherry-picked from #16
Fully authored by Viktor Yudov <[email protected]>

Co-authored-by: Viktor Yudov <[email protected]>
@GulinSS
[ fix ] CI
cf57ff6
@GulinSS GulinSS force-pushed the scoped-snoc-list-swap branch from c128cdf to cf57ff6 Compare July 17, 2025 13:45
@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Jul 22, 2025

@gallais a reminder at the middle/end of July probably after annual leave

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Jul 29, 2025

We're meeting tomorrow for a first go at this PR.

@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Aug 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@gallais
@mjustus

should we solve these conflicts or better wait the review?

@mjustus
Copy link
Collaborator

mjustus commented Aug 8, 2025 •
edited
Loading

I think solving merge conflicts later is the better approach. We tend to do some refactoring during review (e.g. PR #3593) when we spot opportunities that are too tempting to ignore but those shouldn't be too difficult to merge. I am sure Guillaume and I can help resolving conflicts once we are done reviewing.

EDIT: wrong PR number.

@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Aug 19, 2025

hm, I've tried to track the changes but this commit is unclear for me. Could you put more info there?

@gallais
@mjustus

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Aug 20, 2025

That last one is ongoing changes that are not thematically linked beyond being part of the review as a whole.
We reset the commit before each new session, moving pure refactoring commits past it and then add it back
on with all the stuff we've accumulated during the day to it.

@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Aug 26, 2025

@gallais
@mjustus

FYI Not-so-trivial rebase may occur here

@spcfox
Copy link
Contributor

spcfox commented Aug 26, 2025

FYI Not-so-trivial rebase may occur here

I can help with that

@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Sep 4, 2025 •
edited
Loading

@gallais
@mjustus

Might be better to merge current refactor progress "as is"?

@gallais
Copy link
Member

gallais commented Sep 4, 2025

The new academic year is about to start so unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to come back to this for a while.

@GulinSS
Copy link
Contributor Author

GulinSS commented Sep 4, 2025 •
edited
Loading

The new academic year is about to start so unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to come back to this for a while.

I mean I could take the branch, make a rebase, and finally propose all these changes to merge at this pr. What do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@GulinSS @gallais @mjustus @spcfox