# 2025-05-31 13:59:58.466973 +/help # 2025-05-31 14:02:34.778752 +y # 2025-05-31 14:02:48.224553 +n # 2025-05-31 14:02:51.693309 +y # 2025-05-31 14:08:10.229402 +n # 2025-05-31 14:12:35.483471 +we're going to build a typed lisp that compiles to elixir. Features include - type inferrence, union, interection, negation types. Refinement of types based on known properties of values. Some elements of dependent typing. Value-types (typed literals, e.g. atoms (:some_atom) , integers (42)). This lisp once compiled will output readable elixir code. In the future we will add support for other languages (e.g. JS). Prep a `todo.md` file outlining our intentions. Also include a section `discussion` where You outline potential pain points and expand upon needed implementation points. # 2025-05-31 14:12:37.089175 +y # 2025-05-31 14:15:54.196589 +I want to have an ability to type a list such that: 1. the type of the whole list can be inferred from all elements of the list 2. I can reason about individual members of the list (e.g. I construct a list [:one, :two] and I know that the head of the list is of type :one instead of :one|:two) # 2025-05-31 14:16:09.442872 +I want to have an ability to type a list such that: 1. the type of the whole list can be inferred from all elements of the list 2. I can reason about individual members of the list (e.g. I construct a list [:one, :two] and I know that the head of the list is of type :one instead of :one|:two). Refine this intention and include it in `todo.md` # 2025-05-31 14:20:11.834123 +Simmilar intention for typing maps -> I don't want nominal typing, maps are bags of data and I want to type them as such. examples of facts I want to have control over: 1. this map has key X of type Y 2. this map `may` have a key X of type Y 3. this map only has keys of type `atom` or `string` or `:one | :two`. 3. once this function succeeds, the type of map it returns is the type of its 1st argument, with an additional key of its second argument and the value type under this key is the third argument. Refine those spec according to the current SOA type-theory and add it to `todo.md` # 2025-05-31 14:22:28.445089 +/clear # 2025-05-31 14:26:36.085185 +/ask looking at our `todo.md` expand upon what elements of dependent typing we'd benefit from, keeping in mind that what we choose should be relatively simple to implement # 2025-05-31 14:29:43.247525 +add those notes to the file # 2025-05-31 14:33:45.839194 +/ask I want the type notation we use to be less java-ish, more value-oriented. For this, I think a single type could have several notation, depending how much stuff do we know about it. e.g. a tuple of 2 elements {:ok, 1} -> could be expressed just like this. Also like %Tuple{length: 2, types: [:ok, 1]}. Any typle could be expressed like %Tuple{}. Gimme a couple more examples # 2025-05-31 14:36:17.471373 +maps would be more like %Map{elems: [{key_type, value_type}] maybe. Anyways, replace the existing notation in `todo.md` with the new one # 2025-05-31 14:45:52.547372 +/clear # 2025-05-31 14:57:18.893475 +/ask WDYT: Usually AST is a single tree-like data structure and then ppl build a separate context for typing it. Im thinking of collapsing the two into 1 giant MAP like `%{id: 1234, type: nil | id_of_other_node | type , parent: :id | nil, file: "file it was parsed_from", location: [start_loc, start_line_position, end_loc, end_line_position], raw_string: "raw_string of the ast node"}` and then inside the same map, additional keys pertaining to the type of ast node e.g. `%{__previously_mentioned_fields__, ast_node: :if, condition: id_of_condition_node, then: id_of_then_node, else: if_of_else_node}` . My reasoning is - this is a slightly different way of reasoning about the code and may come in handy for typing constaint resolution, adding additional constraints/ resolving constraints on specific nodes. Due to maps beeing immutable in our compiler language - elixir - we can easily modify it in-time for resolving specific ast nodes. WDYT, be reasonable if this is a good way to go about our main datastructure for the whole of parsing/typing/transpiling work # 2025-05-31 15:06:51.404016 +alright, Include a description of the main datastructure into `todo.md` in a separate section dedicated to it. Don't explain trade-offs, just the structure and the intended use - so that an LLM can later understand it. # 2025-05-31 15:09:12.865903 +/clear # 2025-05-31 15:09:35.151032 +/ask what would be a short, cute, nice name for this programming language ? # 2025-05-31 15:11:32.815361 +/map-refresh # 2025-05-31 15:29:32.037620 +/add lib/til.ex test/til_test.exs # 2025-05-31 15:29:34.253517 +/clear # 2025-05-31 15:33:08.244347 +lets proceed with creating a parser for our Tilly lisp. Gather parsed nodes into a map of id -> node , where node is the AST node structure described in `todo.md`. Add tests as You go # 2025-05-31 15:34:30.594145 +y # 2025-05-31 15:34:36.031018 +/run mix test test/til/parser_test.exs # 2025-05-31 15:34:36.031365 +/run mix test test/til/parser_test.exs # 2025-05-31 15:35:36.775345 +y # 2025-05-31 15:35:43.587346 +/clear # 2025-05-31 15:39:19.268798 +implement parsing of s-expressions, literal tuples, maps, anonymous functions, modules, function definitions, module attributes. Add tests as You go. When You fail to parse something, You shouldn't stop parsing other nodes, just mark the ast_node_type as :unknown and add a new key :parsing_error detailing what went wrong. # 2025-05-31 16:00:45.342407 +/clear # 2025-05-31 16:00:46.518543 +implement parsing of s-expressions, literal tuples, maps, anonymous functions, modules, function definitions, module attributes. Add tests as You go. When You fail to parse something, You shouldn't stop parsing other nodes, just mark the ast_node_type as :unknown and add a new key :parsing_error detailing what went wrong. # 2025-05-31 16:00:52.006695 +/clear # 2025-05-31 16:01:02.413953 +implement parsing of s-expressions, literal tuples, maps, anonymous functions, modules, function definitions, module attributes, pattern matching. Add tests as You go. When You fail to parse something, You shouldn't stop parsing other nodes, just mark the ast_node_type as :unknown and add a new key :parsing_error detailing what went wrong. # 2025-05-31 16:13:03.153467 +y # 2025-05-31 16:13:03.157505 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:13:03.157572 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:13:06.197743 +y # 2025-05-31 16:13:12.162483 +fix the compilation error # 2025-05-31 16:14:03.130600 +y # 2025-05-31 16:14:03.133901 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:14:03.133960 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:14:08.651099 +y # 2025-05-31 16:14:12.169888 +fix tests # 2025-05-31 16:41:39.429350 +/clear # 2025-05-31 16:41:53.646166 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:41:56.356067 +y # 2025-05-31 16:42:19.822379 +What's wrong? Fix it. Also be mindful of the required AST node structure # 2025-05-31 16:45:10.838206 +n # 2025-05-31 16:45:13.315485 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:45:16.692449 +y # 2025-05-31 16:45:20.924071 +/clear # 2025-05-31 16:45:22.445090 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 16:45:24.466948 +y # 2025-05-31 16:45:41.705700 +/add lib/til/parser.ex test/til/parser_test.exs todo.md # 2025-05-31 16:45:45.636756 +What's wrong? Fix it. Also be mindful of the required AST node structure # 2025-05-31 17:00:37.382608 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:04:35.399175 +/clear # 2025-05-31 17:04:37.127426 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:04:38.943211 +y # 2025-05-31 17:04:40.412660 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 17:13:32.080680 +y # 2025-05-31 17:13:32.085908 +/run mix format # 2025-05-31 17:13:32.086018 +/run mix format # 2025-05-31 17:13:32.908896 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:13:32.909001 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:13:39.336815 +n # 2025-05-31 17:23:51.727374 +/drop test/til/parser_test.exs # 2025-05-31 17:23:53.576151 +/clear # 2025-05-31 17:26:08.109642 +refactor `parser.ex` - common logic should be extracted to their own functions. - parsing of different elements of the syntax shouldn't be all in one function # 2025-05-31 17:30:01.658613 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:39:25.615869 +n # 2025-05-31 17:39:26.855413 +/clear # 2025-05-31 17:39:33.909137 +/add test/til/parser_test.exs # 2025-05-31 17:41:49.154347 +new datatype - strings, starting and ending with ' . All strings are multiline, taking the position of the initial ` as a count of how many whitespace should be stripped from the begginging of the next lines in it. add tests as You go # 2025-05-31 17:52:21.791007 +y # 2025-05-31 17:52:21.796139 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:52:21.796271 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:52:41.088003 +y # 2025-05-31 17:52:50.198448 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 17:53:49.758153 +y # 2025-05-31 17:53:49.761789 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:53:49.761879 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:53:53.861541 +y # 2025-05-31 17:53:56.683543 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 17:56:00.619275 +y # 2025-05-31 17:56:00.628514 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:56:00.632812 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:56:07.914870 +y # 2025-05-31 17:56:17.831398 +/clear # 2025-05-31 17:56:24.795735 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:56:26.881051 +y # 2025-05-31 17:56:28.701707 +What's wrong? Fix # 2025-05-31 17:58:03.388893 +y # 2025-05-31 17:58:03.393906 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:58:03.393989 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 17:58:07.282440 +n # 2025-05-31 17:59:48.689484 +change the string parsing logic & its tests -> strings in tilly are started and ended with a single quote ' . Not this ` # 2025-05-31 18:13:33.929588 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:13:33.929815 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:18:15.122947 +n # 2025-05-31 18:18:16.621420 +/clear # 2025-05-31 18:20:00.231630 +lets implement parsing lists. Lists are indicated by [] brackets. add tests as You go # 2025-05-31 18:23:00.246453 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:23:04.820593 +n # 2025-05-31 18:24:19.298774 +/drop test/til/parser_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:24:27.548922 +/map-refresh # 2025-05-31 18:24:40.349068 +n # 2025-05-31 18:24:55.256559 +/map-refresh # 2025-05-31 18:25:07.568514 +n # 2025-05-31 18:25:30.137161 +/add lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-05-31 18:25:44.789596 +/read-only test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 18:25:48.931582 +/clear # 2025-05-31 18:26:40.220164 +lets implement parsing tuples. Tuples are indicated by {} brackets. add tests as You go to a new file `tuple_test` # 2025-05-31 18:27:27.547643 +y # 2025-05-31 18:27:30.542096 +/run mix test test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:27:30.542179 +/run mix test test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:28:02.438673 +n # 2025-05-31 18:28:04.586745 +y # 2025-05-31 18:28:04.590077 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:28:04.590165 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:28:10.182172 +n # 2025-05-31 18:28:13.415339 +/clear # 2025-05-31 18:28:16.304291 +/drop test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:29:27.756631 +lets implement parsing maps. Maps are indicated by starting `m{` and closing `}` brackets. add tests as You go to a new file `map_test` # 2025-05-31 18:32:13.426034 +y # 2025-05-31 18:34:54.644603 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:34:54.644721 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:35:19.631948 +n # 2025-05-31 18:35:24.155428 +y # 2025-05-31 18:35:24.157156 +/run mix test test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:35:24.157209 +/run mix test test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:35:44.191185 +n # 2025-05-31 18:47:33.138798 +/clear # 2025-05-31 18:47:45.896596 +/drop map_test # 2025-05-31 18:54:04.107492 +/clear # 2025-05-31 18:54:10.902104 +/add test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:54:15.980733 +/drop test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 18:54:36.622059 +map_expression node should have a list of children ids in it # 2025-05-31 18:56:07.846767 +y # 2025-05-31 18:57:19.504579 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:57:19.504893 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 18:58:27.296593 +n # 2025-05-31 18:59:10.033272 +/drop test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 18:59:11.929003 +/clear # 2025-05-31 19:00:30.275982 +/drop test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 19:00:32.093662 +/clear # 2025-05-31 19:00:45.054295 +/add todo.md # 2025-05-31 19:01:06.246474 +/ask look at the parser implementation - does this cover what we need to proceed with the rest of implementation of tilly ? # 2025-05-31 19:04:38.788378 +/ask review the current implementation and evaluate if we lack any helper functions that could aid in either - debuggability of the complier - typechecking implementation # 2025-05-31 20:03:34.720403 +add them then, maybe in a separate module ? Use them where applicable , in tests and in the actual tilly code # 2025-05-31 20:04:28.127685 +y # 2025-05-31 20:04:29.876692 +/run mix format # 2025-05-31 20:04:29.876901 +/run mix format # 2025-05-31 20:05:42.618318 +write a new test file - for quickly checking some syntax, ad-hoc testing the compiler. Write a test there for testing the pretty-printing behaviour # 2025-05-31 20:05:59.464134 +y # 2025-05-31 20:06:00.883160 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:06:00.883337 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:11:53.148930 +n # 2025-05-31 20:11:55.484387 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:12:00.405318 +n # 2025-05-31 20:12:01.716910 +/clear # 2025-05-31 20:12:10.139755 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:12:12.958787 +y # 2025-05-31 20:13:41.478435 +/clear # 2025-05-31 20:13:42.852521 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:13:48.707392 +y # 2025-05-31 20:14:57.085386 + +pretty_print_ast is not very descriptive - theres no error actually printed. - the error here is `Unclosed S-expression` where in fact, the error is also that the string is opened and not closed ( 'val ) # 2025-05-31 20:44:05.245849 +> # 2 SEARCH/REPLACE blocks failed to match! + +## SearchReplaceNoExactMatch: This SEARCH block failed to exactly match lines in lib/til/parser.ex +<<<<<<< SEARCH + # parent_id for the element + collection_node_id + ) do + {:ok, child_node_id, next_source_element, next_state_element} -> + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_element, + next_state_element, + collection_node_id, + [child_node_id | children_ids_acc], + collection_start_pos_tuple, + # Pass through generalized params + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + element_error_message + ) + + {:error, _reason, next_source_element, next_state_element} -> + # An error occurred parsing an element. + if String.length(next_source_element) < String.length(remaining_source) do + # Error node was created, and some input consumed by the failing parse_datum call + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_element, + next_state_element, + collection_node_id, + # Keep already parsed children + children_ids_acc, + collection_start_pos_tuple, + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + element_error_message + ) + else + # Error parsing element and no input consumed by parse_datum. + # This implies the collection cannot be completed cleanly. + collection_node = Map.get(next_state_element.nodes, collection_node_id) + start_offset = elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 0) + # End at current error position + end_offset = next_state_element.offset + + actual_raw_string = + String.slice(original_source_string, start_offset, end_offset - start_offset) + + updated_collection_node = %{ + collection_node + | # Use generalized message + parsing_error: element_error_message, + # Include successfully parsed children + children: Enum.reverse(children_ids_acc), + location: [ + start_offset, + elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 1), + elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 2), + end_offset, + next_state_element.line, + next_state_element.col + ], + raw_string: actual_raw_string + } + + final_state = %{ + next_state_element + | nodes: + Map.put( + next_state_element.nodes, + collection_node_id, + updated_collection_node + ) + } + + # Propagate the error; the collection node itself is marked and stored. + {:error, "Error in collection element", next_source_element, final_state} + end + end + end + end + end + + # --- Utility Functions --- +======= + # parent_id for the element + collection_node_id + ) do + {:ok, child_node_id, next_source_after_elem, next_state_after_elem} -> + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_after_elem, + next_state_after_elem, + collection_node_id, + [child_node_id | children_ids_acc], # Add successful child's ID + collection_start_pos_tuple, + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + _element_error_message # Pass through, though may be unused + ) + + {:error_node, child_error_node_id, _child_reason, next_source_after_elem, next_state_after_elem} -> + # An error node was created for the child element. Add its ID and continue. + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_after_elem, + next_state_after_elem, + collection_node_id, + [child_error_node_id | children_ids_acc], # Add error child's ID + collection_start_pos_tuple, + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + _element_error_message # Pass through + ) + # No other return types are expected from parse_datum if it always creates a node on error + # or succeeds. If parse_datum could fail without creating a node and without consuming input, + # that would be an issue here, potentially leading to infinite loops if not handled. + # The current changes aim for parse_datum to always return :ok or :error_node. + end + end + end + end + + # --- Utility Functions --- +>>>>>>> REPLACE + +Did you mean to match some of these actual lines from lib/til/parser.ex? + +``` + # Parse an element + case parse_datum( + original_source_string, + remaining_source, + current_state, + # parent_id for the element + collection_node_id + ) do + {:ok, child_node_id, next_source_element, next_state_element} -> + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_element, + next_state_element, + collection_node_id, + [child_node_id | children_ids_acc], + collection_start_pos_tuple, + # Pass through generalized params + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + element_error_message + ) + + {:error, _reason, next_source_element, next_state_element} -> + # An error occurred parsing an element. + if String.length(next_source_element) < String.length(remaining_source) do + # Error node was created, and some input consumed by the failing parse_datum call + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + next_source_element, + next_state_element, + collection_node_id, + # Keep already parsed children + children_ids_acc, + collection_start_pos_tuple, + closing_char_str, + unclosed_error_message, + element_error_message + ) + else + # Error parsing element and no input consumed by parse_datum. + # This implies the collection cannot be completed cleanly. + collection_node = Map.get(next_state_element.nodes, collection_node_id) + start_offset = elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 0) + # End at current error position + end_offset = next_state_element.offset + + actual_raw_string = + String.slice(original_source_string, start_offset, end_offset - start_offset) + + updated_collection_node = %{ + collection_node + | # Use generalized message + parsing_error: element_error_message, + # Include successfully parsed children + children: Enum.reverse(children_ids_acc), + location: [ + start_offset, + elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 1), + elem(collection_start_pos_tuple, 2), + end_offset, + next_state_element.line, + next_state_element.col + ], + raw_string: actual_raw_string + } + + final_state = %{ + next_state_element + | nodes: + Map.put( + next_state_element.nodes, + collection_node_id, + updated_collection_node + ) + } + + # Propagate the error; the collection node itself is marked and stored. + {:error, "Error in collection element", next_source_element, final_state} + end + end + end + end + end + + # --- Utility Functions --- + + # Note: The `extra_fields` argument was changed from optional to required + # as the default value was never used according to compiler warnings. + defp add_node(state, parent_id, location, raw_string, ast_node_type, extra_fields) do + node_id = System.unique_integer([:monotonic, :positive]) +``` + + +## SearchReplaceNoExactMatch: This SEARCH block failed to exactly match lines in lib/til/parser.ex +<<<<<<< SEARCH + # Pass all necessary params to the generalized element parser + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + rest_after_opening_token, + current_state_with_prelim_node, + collection_node_id, + [], + collection_start_pos_for_children, + # Parameters for generalization: + # from args + _close_char_str, + # from args + _unclosed_error_msg, + # from args + _element_error_msg + ) + end + + # Generalized from parse_s_expression_elements +======= + # Pass all necessary params to the generalized element parser + result = + parse_collection_elements( + original_source_string, + rest_after_opening_token, + current_state_with_prelim_node, + collection_node_id, + [], + collection_start_pos_for_children, + # Parameters for generalization, passed from parse_collection's arguments: + close_char_str, # Used by parse_collection_elements + unclosed_error_msg, # Used by parse_collection_elements + element_error_msg # Passed to parse_collection_elements (might be unused there now) + ) + + # Adapt result to {:ok, node_id, ...} or {:error_node, node_id, ...} + case result do + {:ok, returned_collection_node_id, rest, state_after_elements} -> + {:ok, returned_collection_node_id, rest, state_after_elements} + + {:error, reason, rest, state_after_elements} -> + # The collection_node_id is the ID of the node that has the error. + # This 'reason' is typically for unclosed collections. + {:error_node, collection_node_id, reason, rest, state_after_elements} + end + end + + # Generalized from parse_s_expression_elements +>>>>>>> REPLACE + +The SEARCH section must exactly match an existing block of lines including all white space, comments, indentation, docstrings, etc + # 2025-05-31 20:45:11.570633 +/clear # 2025-05-31 20:45:23.053672 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:45:25.358938 +y # 2025-05-31 20:45:27.539208 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 20:46:25.063827 +y # 2025-05-31 20:46:25.066887 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:46:25.066975 +/run mix test test/til/adhoc_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 20:46:57.956102 +y # 2025-05-31 20:47:08.412621 +the error still doesnt mention an un-closed string :/ # 2025-05-31 20:50:09.444049 +/clear # 2025-05-31 20:51:22.384572 +we've got a helper for constructing a pretty-printed string, now lets add a function to construct a data structure for debugging purposes # 2025-05-31 20:58:55.159619 +/clear # 2025-05-31 21:06:39.975100 +/ask I want to start working on the type-checking part soon and want to minimize the amount of code I sent to You and maximize Your familirity with the AST structure. What should we do - create a summary somewhere, new module with some most-important code pretaining to ast, what do YOu think ? # 2025-05-31 21:08:28.077897 +/ask so You're already well equiped for starting to work on the typing part ? # 2025-05-31 21:09:39.516090 +/drop test/til/adhoc_tests.exs lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-05-31 21:10:30.159198 +/drop lib/til/ast_utils.ex # 2025-05-31 21:10:36.364909 +/clear # 2025-05-31 21:11:57.516172 +/add lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-05-31 21:12:39.993126 +based on our current `parser.ex` update `todo.md` with the current state of the AST and its structure, possible nodes etc # 2025-05-31 21:18:12.167462 +/clear # 2025-05-31 21:19:39.477148 +/map-refresh # 2025-05-31 21:19:55.812223 +/add test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:21:19.772421 +currently multiple top-level expressions are not grouped by anything, I cannot even determine their order by ast_nodes alone. Lets parse them into one top-level :file ast structure with them as children # 2025-05-31 21:29:48.515898 +y # 2025-05-31 21:29:48.518525 +/run mix test test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:29:48.518576 +/run mix test test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:31:03.055277 +theres a weird 'unknown token' error at the end of this parse - fix it # 2025-05-31 21:32:34.411613 +y # 2025-05-31 21:32:34.413920 +/run mix test test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:32:34.413984 +/run mix test test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:32:57.369455 +n # 2025-05-31 21:33:10.073866 +/drop test/til/file_parse_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:33:46.442644 +/add test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs test/til/map_test.exs test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:35:04.388683 +our changes to the top-level node parsed by the parser have disrupted our tests, which do not expect it -> fix them, changing their structure as little as possible # 2025-05-31 21:40:54.596887 +y # 2025-05-31 21:40:54.600700 +/run mix test test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 21:40:54.600763 +/run mix test test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-05-31 21:40:56.373142 +/run mix test test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:40:56.373247 +/run mix test test/til/map_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:40:57.389202 +/run mix test test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:40:57.389320 +/run mix test test/til/tuple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:41:01.642960 +n # 2025-05-31 21:42:37.081224 +/drop *_test.exs # 2025-05-31 21:42:44.706708 +/drop test/* # 2025-05-31 21:42:59.851844 +/clear # 2025-05-31 21:44:34.448682 +/ask based on our current implementation, in preparation for actually typing the ast, lets brainstorm the actual type representation. It should be readable, easy to reason over, e.g. simplify terms, etc. # 2025-05-31 21:51:41.686546 +/ask I dont like expressing types as structs, can we have a bare map, with some common fields and some specific to the type_type ? # 2025-05-31 22:06:10.480932 +/ask @ map types -> I don't like switches for closing maps. Just have a list of entries, where a key can be optional or not. Also, any thing can be a key in a map, not just atoms and strings. @ types in general -> is this notation, which is inherently tree-like, appropriate for unification / reduction / substitution /resolution work we'll be doing ? @ types in general -> idk if Im right, but does it make sense to have a type 'the type is the type of some AST node'. Idk if this would be helpful or hurtful. @ refinement types -> is this representation the one that will be most flexible ? Answer my questions having the SOA typechecking implementations & ease of implementation in mind. # 2025-05-31 22:18:29.836071 +one more note - primitive types should not have their name in an CamelCase atom, no type should - lets always use :snake_case names . Alright, detail our decisions in todo.md, removing what is no longer applicable and tidying it up. # 2025-05-31 22:25:32.564601 +/drop lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-05-31 22:25:34.887432 +/clear # 2025-05-31 22:26:12.251579 +/ask we can now parse our basic lisp into our node map - what efforts should we start with to type it ? # 2025-05-31 22:32:01.902525 +/clear # 2025-05-31 22:32:04.681613 +/add lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-05-31 22:32:09.736790 +/ask we can now parse our basic lisp into our node map - what efforts should we start with to type it ? # 2025-05-31 22:43:55.176739 +/clear # 2025-05-31 22:45:33.760521 +create a new file typing_simple_test . in it create 3 tests for typing tilly, increasing in complexity of the typed code. This is in preparation for actually implementing the typing code (TDD) # 2025-05-31 22:47:42.961979 +y # 2025-05-31 22:47:44.628148 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 22:47:44.628356 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 22:48:07.845223 +n # 2025-05-31 22:52:00.748409 +/clear # 2025-05-31 22:52:36.509203 +lets start typing our tilly language in a new file `typer.ex` # 2025-05-31 22:52:48.928529 +y # 2025-05-31 22:53:14.382196 +lets proceed with typing tilly # 2025-05-31 22:58:38.803150 +y # 2025-05-31 22:58:38.806433 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 22:58:38.806512 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 22:58:42.663906 +y # 2025-05-31 22:58:48.498908 +fix the compiler error # 2025-05-31 23:02:05.510218 +y # 2025-05-31 23:02:05.513731 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 23:02:05.513828 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-05-31 23:02:11.712086 +y # 2025-05-31 23:09:43.122008 +We need to define some basic structure to our typing environment. We've got our ast_nodes - cool. Each node has access to a specific environment, and this environment may change from node to node - e.g. assignment (= x 5) changes the environment for nodes defined later in the function body. How do we tackle this ? # 2025-05-31 23:10:00.725797 +We need to define some basic structure to our typing environment. We've got our ast_nodes - cool. Each node has access to a specific environment, and this environment may change from node to node - e.g. assignment (= x 5) changes the environment for nodes defined later. How do we tackle this ? # 2025-05-31 23:25:24.048332 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:25:26.499631 +y # 2025-05-31 23:25:30.102450 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 23:27:33.201962 +n # 2025-05-31 23:27:35.063064 +y # 2025-05-31 23:27:35.066458 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:27:35.066551 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:27:42.349970 +fix it # 2025-05-31 23:28:25.506185 +y # 2025-05-31 23:28:25.508218 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:28:25.508277 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:28:29.717357 +n # 2025-05-31 23:28:30.976467 +/clear # 2025-05-31 23:28:33.650500 +/drop parse # 2025-05-31 23:29:34.738860 +typer.ex is not idiomatic elixir with all those if-elses. Also refactor it to eventually handle all of tilly's constructs # 2025-05-31 23:31:53.635256 +/clear # 2025-05-31 23:31:55.876361 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:31:57.843728 +y # 2025-05-31 23:31:59.759682 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-05-31 23:33:36.253972 +y # 2025-05-31 23:33:36.258585 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:33:36.258669 +/run mix test # 2025-05-31 23:45:08.355060 +n # 2025-06-01 11:35:54.557668 +/clear # 2025-06-01 11:39:19.472434 +lets change how types themselves are stored - right now they have a separate typing_env -> I want it to be merged with node_map. Node map contains ast nodes, no reason it shoudn't also contain types, right ? Ast nodes are key'ed via an integer - maybe we could key types with their name ? wdyt? # 2025-06-01 11:42:02.389495 +y # 2025-06-01 11:42:02.393778 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:42:02.393873 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:42:23.701908 +n # 2025-06-01 11:51:28.930343 +y # 2025-06-01 11:51:28.934286 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:51:28.934356 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:53:06.964744 +/clear # 2025-06-01 11:53:54.886782 +/ask the typing_simple_test is a bit verbose ,can we simplify the validation implementation, via helpers, pattern matching ? Suggest away # 2025-06-01 11:55:32.854850 +apply these changes # 2025-06-01 11:56:20.338707 +y # 2025-06-01 11:56:20.342747 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:56:20.342816 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 11:56:34.686457 +n # 2025-06-01 11:56:35.807820 +/clear # 2025-06-01 12:02:44.581214 +/ask lets implement `if` expressions. the type of the `if` expression is a union of types of the 2 branches. Additional concern: say we check some property of variable `x` -> the type of `x` in the `then` branch is then `type of x, refined by the check we've just made` . Do I get that correctly ? Any other concerns we should address up-front, or remember while implementing `if`s ? # 2025-06-01 12:10:31.594464 +/ask @ missing else -> the missing 'else' has the type `:nil`, wchich is just a specific atom. @ condition type -> in elixir conditions can evaluate to anything, but only 'false' and 'nil' (again, just specific atoms) will be cansidered falsey. @ scope of refinements -> yes, the refinements should be scoped to respective branches. Is that enough for us to implement `if`s or have we missed something ? # 2025-06-01 12:14:56.060970 +alright, implement `if`s # 2025-06-01 12:16:55.193051 +y # 2025-06-01 12:16:55.195943 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 12:16:55.196125 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 12:17:27.907544 +n # 2025-06-01 12:17:29.790127 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 12:17:48.002140 +n # 2025-06-01 12:17:49.344949 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:38:44.727694 +n # 2025-06-01 13:38:46.642660 +/clear # 2025-06-01 13:38:52.559708 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:168 # 2025-06-01 13:38:56.095972 +u # 2025-06-01 13:38:58.142892 +y # 2025-06-01 13:40:03.354273 +What's wrong? Fix it. Seems like the type should really be `nil` because the condition is `true` but I don't know if thats what we ment by this test # 2025-06-01 13:42:24.782424 +y # 2025-06-01 13:42:24.785049 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:159 # 2025-06-01 13:42:24.785107 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:159 # 2025-06-01 13:45:10.314490 +n # 2025-06-01 13:45:12.289606 +/clear # 2025-06-01 13:45:22.931872 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:127 # 2025-06-01 13:45:39.613099 +y # 2025-06-01 13:46:24.162384 + test "types an if expression with different types, resulting in a union" do + source = "(if true 1 'hello')" + {:ok, nodes_map} = Parser.parse(source) + {:ok, typed_nodes_map} = Typer.type_check(nodes_map) + + if_node = get_first_node(typed_nodes_map) + assert if_node.ast_node_type == :s_expression + + expected_int_type = %{type_kind: :primitive, name: :integer} + expected_str_type = %{type_kind: :primitive, name: :string} + + assert_node_typed_as(if_node, typed_nodes_map, %{ + type_kind: :union, + types: Set.new([expected_int_type, expected_str_type]) + }) + end +Seems like this is wrong -> we use literal strings and integers, the type of this `if` should be a union between 2 literals - rn we loose the value type # 2025-06-01 13:47:20.306126 +y # 2025-06-01 13:47:20.309871 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:127 # 2025-06-01 13:47:20.309924 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:127 # 2025-06-01 13:47:21.386542 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:47:21.386656 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:47:25.895802 +y # 2025-06-01 13:47:47.461494 +seems like our built-in types don't have an id, fix it # 2025-06-01 13:48:50.247063 +y # 2025-06-01 13:48:50.251049 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:163 # 2025-06-01 13:48:50.251132 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:163 # 2025-06-01 13:48:51.339463 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:48:51.339570 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:49:04.065550 +n # 2025-06-01 13:49:05.917289 +/clear # 2025-06-01 13:49:08.094339 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:49:10.793873 +y # 2025-06-01 13:49:12.687297 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 13:51:34.733026 +y # 2025-06-01 13:51:34.734916 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:51:34.734970 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 13:51:48.910908 +y # 2025-06-01 13:52:57.563638 +/ask welp, seems like addition of ids is not something that will be pleasant to use - we dont want to guess them or set them explicitly for each test. How can we resolve it without worsening ease of testing # 2025-06-01 14:13:43.516552 +/clear # 2025-06-01 14:13:46.323289 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:13:49.976089 +y # 2025-06-01 14:13:52.514019 +/ask welp, seems like addition of ids is not something that will be pleasant to use - we dont want to guess them or set them explicitly for each test. How can we resolve it without worsening ease of testing # 2025-06-01 14:27:31.907384 +alright, lets implement this # 2025-06-01 14:28:12.624194 +y # 2025-06-01 14:28:12.626690 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:28:12.626773 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:31:50.343366 +n # 2025-06-01 14:32:06.214438 +/clear # 2025-06-01 14:32:15.079949 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 14:33:11.073630 +n # 2025-06-01 14:33:12.699944 +/clear # 2025-06-01 14:33:14.235353 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 14:33:18.553492 +y # 2025-06-01 14:33:30.614485 +implement this feature, making this test pass # 2025-06-01 14:35:22.477282 +y # 2025-06-01 14:35:22.479282 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:35:22.479326 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:35:30.169470 +y # 2025-06-01 14:35:33.417549 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 14:35:33.417652 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 14:35:35.219532 +y # 2025-06-01 14:35:45.588750 +there is no `return` in elixir # 2025-06-01 14:36:10.516838 +y # 2025-06-01 14:36:10.519403 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:36:10.519477 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 14:36:11.224047 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 14:36:11.224216 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 16:18:10.362382 +y # 2025-06-01 16:18:26.074292 +this code does not live in any function, have You forgotten to put it in one ? # 2025-06-01 16:20:09.483117 + # Helper to get a type definition from a node, with a fallback default. # 2025-06-01 16:20:09.492776 + condition_node = Map.get(nodes_map, condition_id) # 2025-06-01 16:20:09.498828 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:20:09.498881 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:20:10.701139 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 16:20:10.701218 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs:186 # 2025-06-01 16:20:11.545549 + condition_type_def = # 2025-06-01 16:20:11.555495 + get_type_definition_from_node(condition_node, nodes_map, canonical_any_type) # 2025-06-01 16:20:11.572585 + cond do # 2025-06-01 16:20:14.900667 + # (if condition then_branch) # 2025-06-01 16:20:20.991471 +n # 2025-06-01 16:21:03.741975 +/add todo.md lib/til/typer.ex test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:21:09.232814 +/clear # 2025-06-01 16:21:24.426323 +/run test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:21:31.367688 +n # 2025-06-01 16:21:37.841023 +/run ./test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:21:51.391554 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:21:53.586408 +y # 2025-06-01 16:27:28.948066 +some of our tests fail because we've added checks for statically-known branch detection in `if`s. To correct those tests we need to use a non-statically known type for the condition. Currently we don't support annotating a variable with a type in tilly itself, so lets add a `boolean` variable into the node_map used in these tests and use it for the condition # 2025-06-01 16:34:30.967999 +/clear # 2025-06-01 16:37:24.984177 +/ask I want to be able to annotate a variable with a type - plan what should we do for that to happen, and what further work will that require and implications it will have on our implementation and how will that fit into the overall implementation of tilly # 2025-06-01 16:42:41.274700 +/ask @ proposed syntax -> while that could work for just variable assignments, what about annotating arbitrary expressions? @ is_compatible? check -> I'd prefer we use an established type-theory lingo wherever we can, so this probably should be named 'is_subtype?' # 2025-06-01 16:46:18.543422 +alright, lets implement this. Add new tests as You go to a new file test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:48:59.074601 +y # 2025-06-01 16:49:01.129794 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:49:01.129913 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:49:41.393142 +y # 2025-06-01 16:50:03.210481 +the check in is_subtype? should be expressed with elixir `cond` # 2025-06-01 16:51:52.146243 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 16:51:57.234126 +y # 2025-06-01 16:51:59.642816 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 17:00:59.033541 +/drop test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 17:01:00.801214 +/clear # 2025-06-01 17:02:50.915938 +rn we can annotate whatever as whatever type, we even have a test for it test "annotation takes precedence: annotates integer literal as string (type error implied)" do + source = "(the string 42)" + {:ok, nodes_map} = Parser.parse(source) + {:ok, typed_nodes_map} = Typer.type_check(nodes_map) + # AstUtils.pretty_print_ast(typed_nodes_map) |> IO.puts() + + the_expr_node = get_first_node(typed_nodes_map) + # The 'the' expression is typed as 'string' due to annotation, + # even if 42 is not a subtype of string. + # Error reporting for the mismatch is a separate concern. + assert_node_typed_as(the_expr_node, typed_nodes_map, @type_string) + end +This should not be possible, type-checking this node should fail, since 42 is not a subtype of string. # 2025-06-01 17:11:56.065546 +y # 2025-06-01 17:11:56.068070 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 17:11:56.068126 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 17:13:02.272468 +y # 2025-06-01 17:13:16.997869 +the failing test - does it make sense to keep it around ? # 2025-06-01 17:13:43.502758 +y # 2025-06-01 17:13:43.505537 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 17:13:43.505634 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 17:14:32.621170 +n # 2025-06-01 18:18:51.856257 +/clear # 2025-06-01 19:32:16.470373 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-01 19:32:37.796598 +/ask given our present implementation, what should we work on next ? # 2025-06-01 19:35:21.165871 +/ask Alright, lets prepare to add this logic. where do You think it should live ? I fear jamming too much into typer.ex # 2025-06-01 19:36:57.218273 +Alright, lets implement this, adding tests as we go # 2025-06-01 19:39:19.065716 +y # 2025-06-01 19:39:19.068990 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:39:19.069087 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:40:06.028645 +n # 2025-06-01 19:40:08.564662 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:40:12.896779 +y # 2025-06-01 19:40:14.474438 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 19:41:49.364519 +y # 2025-06-01 19:41:49.368446 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:41:49.368549 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:42:43.308710 +n # 2025-06-01 19:42:45.527513 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:42:47.795015 +n # 2025-06-01 19:43:27.138088 +/clear # 2025-06-01 19:43:32.068483 +/drop test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 19:44:52.966082 +/ask lets evaluate typer.ex implementation - any refactors You'd like to perform to simplify the implementation while keeping the functionality intact and increasing readability and extensibility ? In the future we'll be covering much more typing logic, and having it all in one place may become a hurdle # 2025-06-01 19:47:10.437512 +lets do it # 2025-06-01 19:51:19.228641 +y # 2025-06-01 19:51:22.812931 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 19:51:22.813010 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 19:51:24.140667 +/run mix format # 2025-06-01 19:51:24.140799 +/run mix format # 2025-06-01 19:51:26.403574 +y # 2025-06-01 19:52:31.429974 +/clear # 2025-06-01 19:55:42.876052 +/ask looking at our current implementation, what should we tackle next ? # 2025-06-01 19:57:53.649065 +lets do it, add tests for your implementation in type_tuple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:04:21.409915 +y # 2025-06-01 20:04:22.860157 +/run mix test test/til/type_tuple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:04:22.860302 +/run mix test test/til/type_tuple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:05:46.407624 +n # 2025-06-01 20:05:48.278813 +/run mix test test/til/type_tuple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:06:05.818240 +n # 2025-06-01 20:06:07.676611 +/run mix test test/til/type_tuple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:06:20.750394 +n # 2025-06-01 20:06:22.346811 +/clear # 2025-06-01 20:06:49.514244 +/drop lib # 2025-06-01 20:06:55.389459 +add test/til/ # 2025-06-01 20:07:01.436095 +/add test/til/ # 2025-06-01 20:08:12.984051 +/ask theres much duplication in our tests: both when it comes to assertions and helpers. Propose how we can refactor them to increase readability, reduce duplication between files and reduce overall LOC # 2025-06-01 20:23:24.226226 +/ask @ location of helper functions -> use /test/support/test_helper.ex @ helpers -> any other improvements ? What You've proposed is just 2 functions, not much reduction in boilerplate. Are more substantial improvements not possible at this point ? # 2025-06-01 20:25:47.129576 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-01 20:26:00.207042 +/add test/support/test_helper.ex # 2025-06-01 20:26:05.421855 +alright lets implement this # 2025-06-01 20:33:57.629017 +y # 2025-06-01 20:33:57.632406 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 20:33:57.632484 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 20:34:21.653548 +n # 2025-06-01 20:34:25.056044 +/drop test/ # 2025-06-01 20:34:30.792103 +/add test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:34:32.950583 +/clear # 2025-06-01 20:34:41.925819 +/run mix test # 2025-06-01 20:34:53.174565 +y # 2025-06-01 20:34:57.761261 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 20:36:53.851903 +y # 2025-06-01 20:43:34.672728 +/drop test # 2025-06-01 20:43:40.152342 +/drop lib/til/typer/subtype_checker.ex # 2025-06-01 20:43:44.040892 +/clear # 2025-06-01 20:43:51.381015 +/add test/til/type_annotation_test.exs test/support/test_helper.ex # 2025-06-01 20:44:05.387545 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:44:08.640648 +y # 2025-06-01 20:44:11.297717 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 20:45:54.102696 +n # 2025-06-01 20:45:55.923972 +y # 2025-06-01 20:45:55.926139 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:45:55.926222 +/run mix test test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:46:24.893318 +n # 2025-06-01 20:46:27.183017 +/clear # 2025-06-01 20:46:30.443920 +/drop test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:46:35.377038 +/add test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:46:48.569092 +/run mix test test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-01 20:48:19.489830 +n # 2025-06-01 20:48:21.342596 +/clear # 2025-06-01 20:48:29.177263 +/drop test # 2025-06-01 20:48:35.250808 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-01 20:57:21.596816 +/ask lets address how atoms - symbols starting with `:` are handled - so far I thinkg we don't have a notion of them, right ? # 2025-06-01 20:57:44.501992 +y # 2025-06-01 21:00:04.519991 +add a test for it in a new file parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:00:34.124155 +y # 2025-06-01 21:00:36.756574 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:00:36.756662 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:00:43.854912 +y # 2025-06-01 21:00:48.381335 +/add test/support/test_helper.ex # 2025-06-01 21:00:56.025078 +fix the test implementation, it doesnt compile # 2025-06-01 21:01:37.725981 +y # 2025-06-01 21:01:37.730245 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:01:37.730327 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:02:45.385891 +Whats wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-01 21:03:53.442796 +y # 2025-06-01 21:03:53.446434 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:03:53.446477 +/run mix test test/til/parse_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:04:31.544811 +n # 2025-06-01 21:04:36.508204 +mix test # 2025-06-01 21:04:53.368064 +n # 2025-06-01 21:05:04.596562 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-01 21:05:12.978065 +/add todo.md # 2025-06-01 21:05:47.740011 +/add lib/til/typer.ex lib/til/typer/ # 2025-06-01 21:06:49.274816 +/ask the atoms are now parsed into their own data structure. Now lets type them as atoms also. What do we need to do to support literal atom types & a general supertype -> atom ? # 2025-06-01 21:18:47.318945 +ok, lets implement this. Add tests to a new file type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:19:51.573783 +y # 2025-06-01 21:19:54.955544 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:19:54.955650 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:20:46.607454 +y # 2025-06-01 21:20:58.455481 +whats wrong, fix it # 2025-06-01 21:24:50.061848 +n # 2025-06-01 21:24:52.558669 +y # 2025-06-01 21:24:52.562106 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:24:52.562185 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:25:04.014910 +its still failing # 2025-06-01 21:28:10.892535 +/add lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-06-01 21:28:15.089081 +try fixing it now # 2025-06-01 21:29:05.815933 +y # 2025-06-01 21:29:05.818381 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:29:05.818420 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:29:10.935614 +y # 2025-06-01 21:29:25.565532 +1 test is still failing # 2025-06-01 21:31:21.793186 +y # 2025-06-01 21:31:21.797721 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:31:21.797791 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-01 21:59:07.729273 +/clear # 2025-06-01 21:59:13.340467 +/drop test/ # 2025-06-02 10:00:28.146951 +/clear # 2025-06-02 10:02:23.519364 +/ask lets add support for lists - starting and ending with `[` `]` . Architect what we need to implement and modify, and what tests do we need to add # 2025-06-02 10:04:22.400697 +lets implement this, adding tests as we go - separately for the parser and typer (in `parse_list_test` and `type_list_test`) # 2025-06-02 10:08:28.305277 +y # 2025-06-02 10:35:40.946282 +/run mix test test/til/list_parser_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:35:40.946417 +/run mix test test/til/list_parser_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:36:46.968491 +/add test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-06-02 10:36:55.834263 +whats wrong with these tests, fix em # 2025-06-02 10:42:08.662837 +y # 2025-06-02 10:42:08.665172 +/run mix test test/til/list_parser_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:42:08.665225 +/run mix test test/til/list_parser_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:42:37.274730 +n # 2025-06-02 10:42:40.689593 +/drop test/til/list_parser_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:43:00.303212 +/drop test/til/simple_parser_tests.exs # 2025-06-02 10:43:06.086557 +/clear # 2025-06-02 10:43:38.881230 +lets add tests for typing lists, in `type_list_test`. # 2025-06-02 10:49:22.082509 +y # 2025-06-02 10:49:23.244733 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:49:23.244835 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 10:55:24.891942 +n # 2025-06-02 11:05:56.267218 +/clear # 2025-06-02 11:09:49.452681 +/ask we can parse lists, now lets type them. A list type should contain type of its contents. I don't know if we should start with also containing more detailed information up front - e.g. optionally knowing the length of the list, or types of contents at different positions within the list (heterogenous lists). We also need to come up with a notation for expressing these by the user. Architect how we should implement this. # 2025-06-02 11:12:58.814121 +Alright, lets implement this # 2025-06-02 12:17:34.012302 +/clear # 2025-06-02 12:17:39.983112 +/ask we can parse lists, now lets type them. A list type should contain type of its contents. I don't know if we should start with also containing more detailed information up front - e.g. optionally knowing the length of the list, or types of contents at different positions within the list (heterogenous lists). We also need to come up with a notation for expressing these by the user. Architect how we should implement this. # 2025-06-02 12:23:24.323861 +/ask @ regarding the notation - we need to implement it upfront for the tests to be conprehensive. The type constructor needs to be lowercase -> e.g. (the (list integer) [1 2]). @ subtyping for lists - we need to implement this right away. Update Your solution draft, did We forget something that we should implement right now, according to type-theory SOA ? # 2025-06-02 12:24:45.717259 +lets implement this, adding tests as we go to `type_list_test` # 2025-06-02 12:26:43.490152 +y # 2025-06-02 12:26:43.493182 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 12:26:43.493232 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 12:32:17.761923 +n # 2025-06-02 12:32:19.167515 +/clear # 2025-06-02 12:32:59.785939 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs:103 # 2025-06-02 12:33:05.345721 +y # 2025-06-02 12:33:07.454278 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-02 12:34:39.356299 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs:103 # 2025-06-02 12:35:13.736927 +n # 2025-06-02 12:35:15.080958 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs:103 # 2025-06-02 12:35:25.654011 +y # 2025-06-02 12:35:33.844344 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-02 13:11:47.736394 +/clear # 2025-06-02 13:12:14.953653 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:12:18.118595 +y # 2025-06-02 13:12:21.842123 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-02 13:14:56.080698 +y # 2025-06-02 13:14:56.082352 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:14:56.082392 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:15:01.418981 +n # 2025-06-02 13:15:02.832923 +/clear # 2025-06-02 13:15:04.182729 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:15:07.017906 +y # 2025-06-02 13:15:11.448665 +What's wrong? lets fix it # 2025-06-02 13:17:02.751325 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:17:59.153730 +y # 2025-06-02 13:18:20.450563 +rewrite Your edits as idiomatic & valid elixir # 2025-06-02 13:21:12.077902 +n # 2025-06-02 13:21:14.613442 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:22:01.487393 +n # 2025-06-02 13:22:07.830551 +/clear # 2025-06-02 13:22:09.576251 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 13:22:27.494219 +y # 2025-06-02 13:22:30.223934 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-02 14:24:33.881987 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 14:24:36.420688 +y # 2025-06-02 14:25:06.754528 +What's wrong? seems like we need to compare types semantically rather than structurally. Fix it # 2025-06-02 14:28:03.984913 +y # 2025-06-02 14:30:44.246840 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 14:30:47.078614 +y # 2025-06-02 14:31:12.846548 +after our adjustment, other tests fail - fix em # 2025-06-02 14:33:06.700623 +/run mix test test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-02 14:33:09.527895 +y # 2025-06-02 14:33:20.008960 +one test still fails, Why ? Fix it # 2025-06-02 14:53:26.080737 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.ex # 2025-06-02 14:53:30.898215 +n # 2025-06-02 14:53:47.351942 +/run mix test test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-02 14:53:49.927293 +y # 2025-06-02 14:53:52.846748 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-02 14:57:53.899006 +y # 2025-06-02 15:03:46.124224 +/drop test/ # 2025-06-02 15:04:03.132416 +/drop parser # 2025-06-02 15:04:11.858543 +/clear # 2025-06-02 15:09:06.987891 +/ask I want to start typing maps. Lets go step by step what we need to do, keeping state-of-art type-theory in mind and our intentions outlined in `todo.md` # 2025-06-02 15:16:56.950979 +/clear # 2025-06-02 15:17:04.954143 +/ask I want to start typing maps. Lets go step by step what we need to do, keeping state-of-art type-theory in mind and our intentions outlined in `todo.md` # 2025-06-02 22:30:48.363499 +/clear # 2025-06-02 22:31:42.335921 +/ask I want to start typing maps. Lets go step by step what we need to do, keeping state-of-art type-theory in mind and our intentions outlined in `todo.md`. Lets also brainstorm about the actual representation of maps - whats in todo is just an opening gambit, which You must improve upon # 2025-06-02 23:01:10.531620 +/ask @ representation -> I think I don't need to implement 'closed' maps - all maps are inherently open, and any code may require a set of keys to be available, but I don't see value in 'closing' the maps to have 'only' a set of keys. re-think the implementation with this in mind. If there are any more open questions / things not clarified, ask about them # 2025-06-02 23:19:16.614670 +/ask @ representation -> is there a way to make do without `index_structure` ? I mean, for map `m{:a 'ada'}` theres only one key with value type `:a` and its value with value type `'ada'`. I envision following scenarios should be expressable in our type system: 1. If we merge this map with another map `m{:b 1}` we ve got 2 key-value type pairs. If we then try to get a value from the merged map `m{:a 'ada' :b 1}` with key with a value `:a` we should get back a value with type `'ada'`. If we try to get a value from the same map with a key of type `atom` we should get a union of `['ada' , 1, nil]` (nil because we dont know if the key actually exists, because we're not able to statically check for it. 2. if from a map `m{:a 'ada' :b 1}` remove key `:a`, the type of the resulting map will be `m{:b 1}` 3. if to a map `m{:a 'ada' :b 1}` we put a key `:a` with a value 2 the resulting map type will be `m{:a 2 :b 1}`. Seems like we need to plan for expressing types of maps constructed by merging and removing maps to/from each other ? Re-think our current approach and address the scenarios I presented, keeping in mind current state-of-art type theory and ease of implementation # 2025-06-02 23:25:59.160388 +/ask Before we proceed with the implementation, lets dig into type-level operations on maps a bit deeper. It seems to me that these operations will need to be exposed to the user, as a notation they can use when annotating functions. Also - shouldn't there be just 3 operations: get, delete, merge, that cover all our use-cases ? # 2025-06-02 23:30:25.363069 +/ask @ minimum set of operations -> can't `(put map key value)` be expressed as `(merge map m{key value})` ? # 2025-06-02 23:38:29.070880 +/ask but I thought we need non-literal keys to be expressible in our type-system anyways. It is a commonly used idiom, e.g. `(= user_info (the (map string any) (get_user_info))` -> in this example `string` is the key type. The same map can be later used to merge into other map, or an other map can be merged into it (the other map having literal or non-literal keys) so I think we'd need a representation that allows us to express this. Maybe using `sum` and `negation` types on sets of key-value types or sets of `keys` and sets of `values` types would be applicable ? # 2025-06-02 23:44:05.775266 +this reasoning seems sound for now. Lets write it down in much detail in `todo.md` under a new section 'map typing'. include use case scenarios, our approach, known limitations and requied future steps along with their pre-requisites. # 2025-06-02 23:55:17.941426 +alright lets implement this # 2025-06-02 23:57:10.958438 +now lets add tests for it in `type_map_test.exs` # 2025-06-02 23:58:13.933823 +y # 2025-06-02 23:58:15.874055 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-02 23:58:15.874155 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-02 23:58:24.122142 +y # 2025-06-02 23:58:34.887438 +lets fix those errors, simplifying the implementation if it makes sense # 2025-06-02 23:59:04.277784 +y # 2025-06-02 23:59:04.280505 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-02 23:59:04.280561 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-02 23:59:12.775328 +y # 2025-06-02 23:59:26.210196 +now it compiles but tests fail. Lets fix them # 2025-06-03 00:02:04.778907 +n # 2025-06-03 00:02:07.613235 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 00:02:44.137201 +n # 2025-06-03 00:02:46.003543 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 00:03:45.504459 +n # 2025-06-03 00:03:46.949161 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 00:03:55.652034 +y # 2025-06-03 00:03:58.070124 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 00:04:20.552334 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 09:42:47.012953 +n # 2025-06-03 09:42:48.601041 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 09:43:38.194362 +y # 2025-06-03 09:43:40.445269 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 09:45:39.827016 +y # 2025-06-03 09:47:19.076823 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 09:47:49.782564 +n # 2025-06-03 09:47:51.865619 +/clear # 2025-06-03 09:47:53.845283 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 09:47:57.367193 +y # 2025-06-03 09:47:59.332400 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 10:16:55.093264 +/clear # 2025-06-03 10:16:57.413954 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 10:17:02.245773 +y # 2025-06-03 10:17:04.549459 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 10:28:23.940801 +n # 2025-06-03 10:28:26.688963 +clear # 2025-06-03 10:28:32.632088 +n # 2025-06-03 10:28:33.950299 +/clear # 2025-06-03 10:28:44.408433 +/add lib/ # 2025-06-03 10:28:51.323531 +/add test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 10:28:54.957924 +/add todo.md # 2025-06-03 10:28:59.224804 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 10:29:01.697335 +y # 2025-06-03 10:29:03.123999 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 11:02:33.908754 +y # 2025-06-03 11:40:47.937013 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 11:40:51.173503 +y # 2025-06-03 11:40:53.052429 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 12:15:09.768783 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 12:53:45.999574 +n # 2025-06-03 12:53:51.156555 +/drop map_test # 2025-06-03 12:53:57.977452 +/add test/til/type_list_test.exs # 2025-06-03 12:53:59.787454 +/clear # 2025-06-03 12:54:05.577143 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 12:54:08.779083 +y # 2025-06-03 12:54:11.529641 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 13:00:24.662296 +n # 2025-06-03 13:04:40.388946 +y # 2025-06-03 13:04:40.393656 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 13:04:40.393769 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 13:07:06.625368 +n # 2025-06-03 13:07:08.139541 +/clear # 2025-06-03 13:07:24.807528 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-03 13:09:13.573534 +/ask I don't like that type-mismatch results in a type that doesnt have any information about what type wasn't assignable to what expected type - I think this already hurts us during testing, and will me very unergonomic for the users. How do You propose we address that ? # 2025-06-03 14:17:16.929902 +lets do that # 2025-06-03 14:26:06.777854 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 14:26:11.112243 +y # 2025-06-03 14:26:12.799532 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 14:26:58.085816 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 14:27:14.284863 +y # 2025-06-03 14:27:16.823460 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 14:28:13.424011 +y # 2025-06-03 14:28:55.578749 +/add test/til/type_annotation_test.exs test/til/type_atom_test.exs # 2025-06-03 14:29:04.993022 +Ive added them, now lets fix those too # 2025-06-03 14:29:56.650602 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 14:30:01.400522 +y # 2025-06-03 14:30:12.338596 +still tests failing. What's wrong? Fix iy # 2025-06-03 14:33:02.026562 +/run mix test # 2025-06-03 14:34:08.670289 +n # 2025-06-03 14:38:24.674367 +/clear # 2025-06-03 14:38:27.920496 +/drop til # 2025-06-03 14:38:32.823656 +/add test # 2025-06-03 14:38:42.522196 +/ask # 2025-06-03 14:42:44.487553 +lets review our implementation through looking at our tests. We've moved fast with our implementation, often incrementally building features. This required us to sometimes write tests that make do with what currently was implemented. Now we need to revamp our test suite. Find - shortcuts we've taken and should implement - tests that are just plain wrong and work against the design of the language. - typing tests that require us to make too-broad assumptions about types. Present Your findings as an actionble list of shortcomings we currently enforce with our tests # 2025-06-03 14:58:25.149441 +/edit # 2025-06-03 14:58:32.534970 +/chat-mode # 2025-06-03 14:58:40.709762 +/code # 2025-06-03 14:58:54.718779 +/drop test # 2025-06-03 14:59:25.307940 +/add test/til/typing_simple_test.exs test/til/type_annotation_test.exs test/til/type_map_test.exs lib/til/typer # 2025-06-03 14:59:33.375416 +/clear # 2025-06-03 14:59:34.833862 +/edit # 2025-06-03 15:01:19.467341 +/ask We've come up with this feedback @ review of our tests and assumptions it tests about our code : +**Incomplete Feature Testing / Shortcuts in Tests:** + * **Typing of `if` Conditions** (`test/til/typing_simple_test.exs`): + * Multiple tests (e.g., "types an if expression with same type in both branches", "types an if expression with different types", "types an if expression with a missing else branch") use undefined variables like `cond_var` or hardcode `true` for the condition. This bypasses testing the type checking of the `if` condition itself. The typer should likely enforce that the condition is of a boolean-compatible type. Tests need to be updated to cover valid and invalid condition types. + * **Unknown Type Specifiers in Annotations** (`test/til/type_annotation_test.exs`): + * `test "unknown type symbol in annotation defaults to 'any'"`: This behavior is a shortcut. An unknown type specifier (e.g., `(the foobar 42)`) should likely result in a type error rather than defaulting to `any`. + * **`(union ...)` Type Specifiers Not Parsed** (`test/til/type_annotation_test.exs`): + * Tests like "integer is subtype of (integer | string) - requires (union ...) type specifier" and "annotating an (if true 1 's') expression with (integer | string) union type" correctly note that `(union ...)` specifiers are not parsed and default to `any`. These tests currently verify a fallback. The parser/typer needs to implement resolution for these specifiers, and then tests should be updated to assert the correct union type behavior. + +**Potentially Incorrect Type Inference Logic / Overly Broad Assumptions:** + * **Map Literal Typing with Non-Literal Keys** (`test/til/type_map_test.exs`): + * `test "map with a non-literal key (e.g. variable) results in empty known_elements for now"`: Asserts that if *any* key in a map literal is non-literal, the entire `known_elements` map becomes empty. `todo.md` suggests non-literal keys don't *contribute* to `known_elements`, but literal keys present should still be part of `known_elements`. This test enforces a more restrictive behavior than possibly intended. + +Now lets come up with a plan to fix those issues # 2025-06-03 15:02:22.380686 +y # 2025-06-03 15:08:55.411269 +/clear # 2025-06-03 15:08:57.798753 +/ask We've come up with this feedback @ review of our tests and assumptions it tests about our code : +**Incomplete Feature Testing / Shortcuts in Tests:** + * **Typing of `if` Conditions** (`test/til/typing_simple_test.exs`): + * Multiple tests (e.g., "types an if expression with same type in both branches", "types an if expression with different types", "types an if expression with a missing else branch") use undefined variables like `cond_var` or hardcode `true` for the condition. This bypasses testing the type checking of the `if` condition itself. The typer should likely enforce that the condition is of a boolean-compatible type. Tests need to be updated to cover valid and invalid condition types. + * **Unknown Type Specifiers in Annotations** (`test/til/type_annotation_test.exs`): + * `test "unknown type symbol in annotation defaults to 'any'"`: This behavior is a shortcut. An unknown type specifier (e.g., `(the foobar 42)`) should likely result in a type error rather than defaulting to `any`. + * **`(union ...)` Type Specifiers Not Parsed** (`test/til/type_annotation_test.exs`): + * Tests like "integer is subtype of (integer | string) - requires (union ...) type specifier" and "annotating an (if true 1 's') expression with (integer | string) union type" correctly note that `(union ...)` specifiers are not parsed and default to `any`. These tests currently verify a fallback. The parser/typer needs to implement resolution for these specifiers, and then tests should be updated to assert the correct union type behavior. + +**Potentially Incorrect Type Inference Logic / Overly Broad Assumptions:** + * **Map Literal Typing with Non-Literal Keys** (`test/til/type_map_test.exs`): + * `test "map with a non-literal key (e.g. variable) results in empty known_elements for now"`: Asserts that if *any* key in a map literal is non-literal, the entire `known_elements` map becomes empty. `todo.md` suggests non-literal keys don't *contribute* to `known_elements`, but literal keys present should still be part of `known_elements`. This test enforces a more restrictive behavior than possibly intended. + +Now lets come up with a plan to fix those issues # 2025-06-03 15:14:46.458320 +alright lets do it # 2025-06-03 15:28:18.801182 +n # 2025-06-03 15:54:31.145868 +/drop test/til/typing_simple_test.exs # 2025-06-03 15:54:36.846996 +/clear # 2025-06-03 15:59:19.374071 +/ask I think we implemented map types with an important oversight -> do we only allow atoms as known keys ? thought any type-value pairs should be viable. Answer me keeping in mind current SoA type-theory and semantics of our target languge - elixir # 2025-06-03 16:05:50.697598 +alright, lets implement this, ensuring we've got a test covering it # 2025-06-03 16:10:46.426801 +/run test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:10:51.216309 +n # 2025-06-03 16:10:56.236233 +/run ./test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:10:59.509546 +n # 2025-06-03 16:11:06.351146 +/run mix test test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:11:49.086607 +y # 2025-06-03 16:15:15.278338 +2 things I see wrong here: 1. the 2 keys are not in the map type 2. The index structure contains (any => any) which is just not true, . the test tests the type of (= my-key :c) + m{:a 1 my-key 2} +the resulting map should have a type of `m{:a 1 :c 2}`, why the any->any index structure ? # 2025-06-03 16:17:54.345921 +/clear # 2025-06-03 16:25:11.888157 +/ask lets think about next steps we need to take to take our tilly language to production, type-system and language constructs. Ordered list, please, in feasable small steps. # 2025-06-03 16:30:10.027209 +/drop todo.md # 2025-06-03 16:31:08.662662 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-03 16:31:13.553112 +/add project.md # 2025-06-03 16:37:18.367688 +/clear # 2025-06-03 16:38:20.280366 +/ask lets prepare to implement user-facing union types . Plan the implementation # 2025-06-03 16:50:07.059762 +lets follow TDD and write a test suite `type_union_test.exs` that'll verify our implementation based on the plan You've just made # 2025-06-03 16:51:16.495287 +y # 2025-06-03 16:51:35.566349 +n # 2025-06-03 16:51:42.355250 +/drop test/til/type_map_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:52:31.174318 +now lets add the actual implementation # 2025-06-03 16:55:09.265693 +y # 2025-06-03 16:55:09.271365 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:55:09.271485 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 16:55:13.510585 +y # 2025-06-03 16:55:22.466948 +lets fix it # 2025-06-03 17:12:21.301823 +/clear # 2025-06-03 17:12:23.376942 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 17:12:26.978837 +y # 2025-06-03 17:12:28.956136 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 17:14:37.634118 +n # 2025-06-03 17:14:42.875528 +/add project.md # 2025-06-03 17:14:49.727083 +/add til/typer # 2025-06-03 17:14:52.732521 +n # 2025-06-03 17:14:58.766460 +/add lib/til/typer # 2025-06-03 17:15:14.088358 +/add lib/til/typer.ex # 2025-06-03 17:15:22.173748 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 17:15:24.346068 +y # 2025-06-03 17:15:26.453392 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 17:20:41.786299 +/clear # 2025-06-03 17:20:44.412304 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 17:20:49.674670 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 17:39:00.519626 +n # 2025-06-03 17:39:19.031713 +/add lib/til/typer lib/til/typer.ex # 2025-06-03 17:39:25.677396 +/add project.md # 2025-06-03 17:39:30.748438 +/clear # 2025-06-03 17:39:34.834887 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 17:39:37.413089 +y # 2025-06-03 17:39:40.707305 +What's wrong? lets fix it # 2025-06-03 18:06:19.786806 +n # 2025-06-03 18:06:23.509412 +/add lib/til/typer lib/til/typer.ex # 2025-06-03 18:06:26.143599 +/add project.md # 2025-06-03 18:06:28.999055 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:06:37.539927 +What's wrong? lets fix those tests # 2025-06-03 18:11:05.188601 +/help # 2025-06-03 18:11:12.109978 +/tokens # 2025-06-03 18:12:13.675931 +/context # 2025-06-03 18:12:25.718158 +/help # 2025-06-03 18:12:49.876632 +/save # 2025-06-03 18:12:56.512165 +/code # 2025-06-03 18:13:00.840158 +/save session # 2025-06-03 18:13:24.199125 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:13:29.963677 +y # 2025-06-03 18:13:34.284526 +/save session # 2025-06-03 18:14:11.137094 +/ask lets brainstorm why the tests fail # 2025-06-03 18:17:39.795238 +lets fix those tests now # 2025-06-03 18:22:23.965889 +y # 2025-06-03 18:23:00.845749 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:23:03.168788 +y # 2025-06-03 18:23:05.345030 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-03 18:25:45.369424 +lets try to fix the failing tests # 2025-06-03 18:28:22.754956 +y # 2025-06-03 18:28:41.466244 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:28:41.466497 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:28:44.765889 +y # 2025-06-03 18:30:23.624788 +/clear # 2025-06-03 18:36:48.205519 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:38:50.171716 +/ask What's wrong? Lets go step by step how we arrived at this error, what design decisions caused this, and how can we rectify them without degrading the overall functionality. # 2025-06-03 18:52:48.135743 +lets fix it then # 2025-06-03 18:57:54.832073 +y # 2025-06-03 18:57:54.834944 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 18:57:54.835023 +/run mix test test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 19:00:37.458611 +n # 2025-06-03 19:03:53.470888 +/clear # 2025-06-03 19:05:20.476797 +/ask Lets evaluate current implementation - is it feasable to add bi-directional type inference using the machinery we've got in place rn ? If not, then what are we missing ? Evaluate it keeping State of art type-theory and compiler design. # 2025-06-03 19:53:50.586393 +/ask yes, we aim for polymorphism - whats more, with our map types, we should aim for row-polymorphism - what do You think ? # 2025-06-03 19:57:11.227137 +/ask the way I see it - row-types are just maps. Maps are a bit more involved, because `normal` row types have only labels for field names, and we can have literal value types, or more-general unions as keys , what do You think ? # 2025-06-03 20:27:16.328181 +lets write down our thoughts about typing maps in a new section in project.md # 2025-06-03 20:27:38.542643 +lets write down our thoughts about typing maps & biderectional typechecking in new sections in project.md # 2025-06-03 20:43:39.438375 +/drop test/support/test_helper.ex # 2025-06-03 20:43:44.643473 +/drop test/til/type_union_test.exs # 2025-06-03 20:43:53.209086 +/drop test/til/type_annotation_test.exs # 2025-06-03 20:44:06.467492 +/clear # 2025-06-03 20:46:14.559211 +/ask lets prepare for implementing function types & user defined functions & lambdas. We need to define syntax for them, design how their types should look etc. Keep in mind that we'll be adding bidirectional type-inference soon. Plan what we need to do, what choices we need to make up front. Keep in mind State of art type-theory and compiler design. # 2025-06-04 10:27:51.027495 +/clear # 2025-06-04 10:32:04.241703 +/ask lets prepare for implementing function types & user defined functions & lambdas. Inside project.md theres a section on its syntax, design how their types should look etc. Keep in mind that we'll be adding bidirectional type-inference soon. Plan what we need to do, what choices we need to make up front. Keep in mind State of art type-theory and compiler design. # 2025-06-04 11:40:30.871568 +/ask I've updated the `project.md` with additional details about the syntax. notes: @ variadic argument lists -> elixir dosn't have them, so we shouldnt too. @ return type syntax -> its inside the `arg list s-exp` as the last form . @ defn syntax -> added an optional docstring @ defaulting to `any` for lambda arguments -> I assume later we'll use type intersection to add more restrictive type requirements based on the function body ? Update our step-by-step implementation plan, answer my question and re-evaluate our approach. # 2025-06-04 13:28:09.672718 +Sounds good, lets document our decisions & plan in a NEW section in `project.md` and prepare a new test file to proceed with the implementation in a TDD approach. Don't implement anything yet, lets let the tests fail first. # 2025-06-04 13:30:04.776319 +y # 2025-06-04 13:30:07.393379 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:30:07.393513 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:30:57.713184 +n # 2025-06-04 13:31:25.578224 +/add lib/til/parser.ex # 2025-06-04 13:31:47.051268 +Alright, now lets implement this. # 2025-06-04 13:37:50.655166 +y # 2025-06-04 13:37:50.658938 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:37:50.659021 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:39:03.454651 +y # 2025-06-04 13:42:22.675506 +/ask Alright, this works. Whats next ? # 2025-06-04 13:44:22.491559 +alright, lets proceed # 2025-06-04 13:45:58.892032 +y # 2025-06-04 13:45:58.895028 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:45:58.895106 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:48:28.429124 +y # 2025-06-04 13:48:45.765999 +What went wrong ? lets fix those tests # 2025-06-04 13:54:04.871176 +y # 2025-06-04 13:54:04.875309 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:54:04.875364 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 13:54:33.352813 +y # 2025-06-04 13:54:36.435704 +What went wrong ? lets fix those tests # 2025-06-04 14:22:36.830706 +y # 2025-06-04 14:22:36.847626 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 14:22:36.847720 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 14:22:42.590409 +y # 2025-06-04 14:22:44.321826 +/clear # 2025-06-04 14:22:45.832956 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 14:22:47.774043 +y # 2025-06-04 14:22:58.131423 +What's wrong? fix it # 2025-06-04 16:17:09.723282 +/clear # 2025-06-04 16:17:11.544888 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 16:17:14.573620 +y # 2025-06-04 16:17:17.913910 +What's wrong? lets fix it # 2025-06-04 16:22:38.844098 +/ask why do the tests fail ? # 2025-06-04 18:07:01.426174 +lets fix them # 2025-06-04 19:53:45.923546 +y # 2025-06-04 19:53:45.927646 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 19:53:45.927709 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 19:53:56.440189 +y # 2025-06-04 19:54:34.806932 +still doesnt work, explain the reasoning and then try to fix it # 2025-06-04 19:55:35.688071 +/clear # 2025-06-04 19:55:38.170204 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 19:55:40.690872 +y # 2025-06-04 19:55:54.241610 +/ask explain why these tests might fail # 2025-06-04 21:33:53.597979 +yes, instead we should either `Map.put` or `Map.merge` # 2025-06-04 21:34:08.809873 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 21:38:04.003431 +n # 2025-06-04 21:38:07.165407 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs:245 # 2025-06-04 21:38:36.355009 +n # 2025-06-04 21:38:38.243776 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs:245 # 2025-06-04 21:47:17.463760 +n # 2025-06-04 21:47:21.527495 +/clear # 2025-06-04 21:47:22.913496 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs:245 # 2025-06-04 21:47:37.635224 +y # 2025-06-04 21:48:48.185751 +seems like this test is essentially ok -> the return type is literal `1` , which should be a subtype of `integer` - can we assert this instead ? # 2025-06-04 21:50:39.294204 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs:245 # 2025-06-04 21:50:50.386899 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 21:52:56.973192 +n # 2025-06-04 21:53:01.716678 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 21:53:05.273938 +n # 2025-06-04 21:53:06.716684 +/clear # 2025-06-04 21:56:02.417561 +/ask what should be our next step @ implementing functions ? # 2025-06-04 21:58:23.187006 +/ask lets plan this then, along with a list of tests we should write according to TDD # 2025-06-04 22:03:13.008664 +alright , lets write this test suite to `type_function_allocation_test.exs` with one modification -> strings in tilly are written with single quotes (you've written them with double quotes). Don't implement the actual logic yet. # 2025-06-04 22:03:48.689273 +y # 2025-06-04 22:03:50.608262 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:03:50.608376 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:04:15.760446 +n # 2025-06-04 22:04:19.025659 +/clear # 2025-06-04 22:04:27.341094 +/drop test/til/type_function_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:04:59.433721 +/ask lets plan the implementation of function application that'll satisfy our test suite. # 2025-06-04 22:06:29.884190 +alright lets implement this # 2025-06-04 22:08:38.337574 +n # 2025-06-04 22:08:39.909723 +y # 2025-06-04 22:08:39.911999 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:08:39.912046 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:09:45.091067 +n # 2025-06-04 22:09:47.644011 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs:110 # 2025-06-04 22:09:51.173014 +y # 2025-06-04 22:10:05.631340 +what caused this error? lets fix it # 2025-06-04 22:33:50.719161 +n # 2025-06-04 22:33:56.180268 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs:110 # 2025-06-04 22:34:03.424568 +y # 2025-06-04 22:36:27.341698 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs:110 # 2025-06-04 22:36:42.057604 +n # 2025-06-04 22:36:44.641896 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:36:54.602289 +n # 2025-06-04 22:36:56.857160 +/cleaar # 2025-06-04 22:36:59.040487 +/clear # 2025-06-04 22:37:02.175178 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:37:04.323132 +y # 2025-06-04 22:38:17.758609 +/ask aren't those tests using functions that are polymorphic ? type of id is (using popular notation) `forall x: x -> x`, right ? # 2025-06-04 22:41:11.941047 +/ask should we start working on support for polymorphic functions now ? # 2025-06-04 22:45:35.849706 +ok, lets not skip to phase 5 or define specific rules for lambdas that return one of its parameters. Lets instead explicitly annotate type of those lambdas in our tests (which lets us test their application) # 2025-06-04 22:46:15.399518 +y # 2025-06-04 22:46:15.403927 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:46:15.404063 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:46:40.956068 +n # 2025-06-04 22:46:42.448146 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 22:49:36.181743 +y # 2025-06-04 22:52:12.629337 +/ask seems like our implementation doesnt allow to annotate a lambda like that - as soon as its parsed an typed on its own, its types are baked-in. And right now, any parameter to a lambda is `any`. Is that correct ? How should we rectify that ? Can we do that now , or should we postpone it until phase 5 ? # 2025-06-04 23:03:46.854104 +/ask 1. this would introduce a yet another way of typing a function - could we somewhat reuse the existing syntax from `defn` definitions ? 2. Also another ?problem? with Your suggestion - would we still be able to perform full typechecking inside the lambda ? Would the body of the lambda be aware of the annotated parameter/return types ? # 2025-06-04 23:12:41.917600 +/ask I don't like it - it'd implement a part of bidirectional checking, but not all of it - we'd have to work around it or re-write it in phase 5. What if we modified the syntax for the lambda itself, to allow it to be typed inside the lambda form itself: `(fn ((param1 type1) (param2 type2) return_type) function_body)`. When we add polymorphism the same syntax would still make sense - un-annotated parameters could be automatically inferred as beeing of polymorphic type: `(= id_function (fn (x) x))`. What do You think ? # 2025-06-04 23:18:40.034538 +alright, lets implement this, change the tests and the implementation # 2025-06-04 23:24:40.952917 +y # 2025-06-04 23:24:40.956618 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 23:24:40.956673 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 23:24:45.390846 +y # 2025-06-04 23:24:58.057630 +fix compilation errors # 2025-06-04 23:25:27.049436 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-04 23:29:44.998204 +n # 2025-06-04 23:29:46.919493 +/clear # 2025-06-05 17:00:14.277347 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-05 17:00:39.654231 +n # 2025-06-05 17:00:43.489109 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs:82 # 2025-06-05 17:00:46.812191 +y # 2025-06-05 17:01:03.419294 +What's wrong? lets fix it # 2025-06-05 17:03:28.788444 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs:82 # 2025-06-05 17:03:35.371092 +n # 2025-06-05 17:03:37.983908 +/clear # 2025-06-05 17:03:39.863830 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-05 17:04:05.721114 +y # 2025-06-05 17:05:00.979334 +What's wrong? seems like Your recent arity fix has broken arity checks - the last form in the typed param list is the return type. lets fix it # 2025-06-05 17:07:54.753778 +y # 2025-06-05 17:07:54.759057 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-05 17:07:54.759184 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-05 17:09:07.406323 +n # 2025-06-05 17:09:08.531077 +/clear # 2025-06-05 17:09:09.889912 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-05 17:09:32.844284 +y # 2025-06-05 17:11:27.976652 +/ask these tests fail because we expect the type of the application is more specific than the declared in the lambda type. I like this - If its a subtype of the declared type - Im more than happy to operate on a more specific type. What can we do to make these tests pass ? # 2025-06-06 09:54:18.088499 +/clear # 2025-06-06 09:54:22.929647 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-06 09:54:56.204543 +y # 2025-06-06 09:55:19.432408 +Lets adjust our implementation so that tests may pass. # 2025-06-06 14:48:27.822205 +n # 2025-06-06 14:48:29.322987 +y # 2025-06-06 14:48:29.326341 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-06 14:48:29.326408 +/run mix test test/til/type_function_allocation_test.exs # 2025-06-06 14:48:42.356227 +y # 2025-06-08 22:48:06.764185 +n # 2025-06-08 22:48:09.849394 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-08 22:48:12.667263 +/map # 2025-06-08 22:48:56.054820 +n # 2025-06-08 22:52:21.707805 +/ask seems like we went the wrong way somewhere along the way - The project does not seem to develop like I wanted to. My focus is on set-thoritic types. I want to consult cduce repository to find out how we can 'steal' ideas from there. Prepare me a prompt I can use for extracting relevant information from this repository using aider # 2025-06-08 22:52:36.918164 +/ask seems like we went the wrong way somewhere along the way - The project does not seem to develop like I wanted to. My focus is on set-thoritic types. I want to consult cduce repository to find out how we can 'steal' ideas from there. Prepare me a prompt I can use for extracting relevant information from cduce repository using aider # 2025-06-08 22:53:37.967900 +Lets also include some information about our goal here - implementing tilly - typed lisp, transpiler to elixir. Any other things we should include in the prompt ? # 2025-06-09 22:50:38.282261 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-09 22:50:41.662690 +/map # 2025-06-09 22:51:25.603504 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-09 22:52:29.321096 +/add set_types.md # 2025-06-09 22:52:40.936317 +/add project.md # 2025-06-09 22:53:50.465449 +/ask we went totally the wrong way with how we've implemented types so far in Tilly - What we need are set-thoritic types, akin to whats implemented in cduce. Lets plan how we can adapt existing implementation. consult `set_types.md` # 2025-06-09 23:41:38.002753 +/edit # 2025-06-09 23:53:20.577172 +please explain extensively what do You mean, for what purpose and what will it entail +``` +3. **`Tilly.BDD.ElementProtocol` and `Tilly.BDD.LeafProtocol` (New):** + * Define these protocols. Implementations will be provided for basic elements (e.g., atoms, integers for splitting) and basic leaves (e.g., booleans for simple set membership). +``` + +The concern I have is I will opt for using bare maps, instead of structs wherever I can, to enable extensibility (structs are closed) - so protocols in elixir won't be able to cover those. NOTE: I don't know yet what You're intending to do with `Tilly.BDD.ElementProtocol` and `Tilly.BDD.LeafProtocol` but I was thinking, maybe we could include functions for operating on some compiler thingies as part of the compiler `ctx` # 2025-06-10 00:08:06.007061 +well then, from another angle - if those functions are to operate on BDDs, regardless of what they represent (if I get this correctly) then shouldn't they be just a bunch of functions on the BDD, and not require any protocols / flexible dispatch - because the raw elements of the BDD will never change, even if we add new types we wish to describe using BDDs ? # 2025-06-10 09:47:06.702038 +/ask what if we followed ocamls functor-like approach ? If BDD is a map, it itself can contain: +- element_opts/leaf_opts anonymous functions like we've discussed before +- opts Module, as an atom -> which will contain those functions +Both could be viable. +The point is, if Im reading this correctly, the BDD itself should have a way to accept opts, and they should be passed around with the BDD itself, not shared in the compiler `ctx` which would then need to know how to handle all of bdd element types all at once. +wdyt ? + # 2025-06-10 09:52:13.932950 +/ask Correction - the opts module reference would not live inside a node of a BDD, but inside the BDD map, which we dicussed here: 2. **`Tilly.BDD` (New):** + * Implement the hash-consing mechanism for BDD nodes. + * This store will be part of the compiler `ctx` map. + * Key function: `get_or_intern_node(typing_ctx, logical_structure_tuple) :: {new_typing_ctx, node_id}`. + # 2025-06-10 09:58:14.689573 +You've wrriten: +``` + * **Storage:** The `typing_ctx.bdd_store.structures_by_id` map will store, for each `unique_node_id`: + ```elixir + # unique_node_id (integer) => + %{ + structure: logical_structure_tuple, # e.g., {:split, ...} + ops_module: ops_module_atom # e.g., :integer_bool_bdd_ops + } + ``` + This is crucial: the `ops_module` is *not* inside the `logical_structure_tuple` itself but is stored alongside it, associated with the `node_id`. +```` +I don't hink thats alright - BDDs model only 1 domain, so they should have only one ops module PER BDD. +Since we cannot have links between BDDs, we cannot have a BDD that has multiple ops modules. +This means that the `ops_module` should be part of the BDD itself - the BDD thats part of `Descr` - am I right ? + # 2025-06-10 09:58:18.887191 +/ask You've wrriten: +``` + * **Storage:** The `typing_ctx.bdd_store.structures_by_id` map will store, for each `unique_node_id`: + ```elixir + # unique_node_id (integer) => + %{ + structure: logical_structure_tuple, # e.g., {:split, ...} + ops_module: ops_module_atom # e.g., :integer_bool_bdd_ops + } + ``` + This is crucial: the `ops_module` is *not* inside the `logical_structure_tuple` itself but is stored alongside it, associated with the `node_id`. +```` +I don't hink thats alright - BDDs model only 1 domain, so they should have only one ops module PER BDD. +Since we cannot have links between BDDs, we cannot have a BDD that has multiple ops modules. +This means that the `ops_module` should be part of the BDD itself - the BDD thats part of `Descr` - am I right ? + # 2025-06-10 10:09:49.958154 +/ask alright, lets revise this implementation plan with our new findings (note adjustments made by me) , lets be extensive ```Here's a plan for adaptation: + +** overarching concerns: + +- lets use bare maps instead of structs. Structs are closed, and I want to keep the option of adding new fields later and extending the compiler like a library + +**I. Foundational BDD and Type Descriptor Infrastructure (New Modules)** + +This phase focuses on building the core components described in `set_types.md`. These will mostly be new modules. + +1. **`Tilly.BDD.Node` (New):** + * Define the Elixir tagged tuples for BDD nodes: `false`, `true`, `{:leaf, leaf_value_id}`, `{:split, element_id, p_child_id, i_child_id, n_child_id}`. + * include smart constructors +2. **`Tilly.BDD` (New):** + * Implement the hash-consing mechanism for BDD nodes. + * This store will be part of the compiler `ctx` map. + * Key function: `get_or_intern_node(typing_ctx, logical_structure_tuple) :: {new_typing_ctx, node_id}`. +3. **`Tilly.BDD.Ops` (New):** + * Implement core BDD operations: `union_bdds`, `intersection_bdds`, `negation_bdd`, `difference_bdd`. + * These functions will take BDD node IDs and the compiler `ctx`, returning a new BDD node ID. + * Implement smart constructors for `Split` and `Leaf` nodes that use the `Tilly.BDD.Store` and apply simplification rules. +4. **`Tilly.Type` (New):** + * Map that will will hold IDs of canonical BDDs for each basic kind (e.g., `:atoms`, `:integers`, `:pairs`, etc., mirroring CDuce's `descr` fields). +5. **`Tilly.Type.Store`:** + * Manages the interning of `Tilly.Type.Descr` maps. A `Descr` is canonical if its constituent BDD IDs are canonical and the combination is unique. + * This store will also be part of the compiler `ctx` -> eg under `:type_store` key +6. **`Tilly.Type.Ops` (New):** + * Implement `union_types(ctx, descr1_id, descr2_id)`, `intersection_types`, `negation_type`. These operate on `Descr` IDs by performing field-wise BDD operations using `Tilly.BDD.Ops`, then interning the resulting `Descr`. + +**II. Adapting Existing Typer Modules** + +This phase involves refactoring existing modules to use the new infrastructure. The `typing_ctx` will need to be threaded through all relevant type-checking functions. + +1. **`Til.Typer.Types` (Major Refactor):** + * Functions like `get_primitive_type(:integer)` will now use the new infrastructure to construct/retrieve an interned `Tilly.Type.Descr` ID for the integer type (e.g., a `Descr` where `integers_bdd_id` points to a "true" BDD for integers, and others are "false"). + * The concept of predefined type *maps* will be replaced by predefined canonical `Descr` IDs. +2. **`Til.Typer.Interner` (Major Refactor/Integration with `Tilly.Type.Store` and `Tilly.BDD.Store`):** + * Its role in interning type *maps* will be replaced. The new stores will handle BDD node and `Descr` interning. + * `populate_known_types` will pre-populate the `typing_ctx` with canonical `Descr` IDs for base types like `any`, `integer`, `atom`, `nothing`. +3. **`Til.Typer` and `Til.Typer.ExpressionTyper` (Significant Refactor):** + * `infer_type_for_node_ast` (in `ExpressionTyper` or similar): + * For literals (e.g., `123`, `:foo`), it will construct the corresponding `Descr` ID (e.g., an integer `Descr` with a BDD representing only `123`). + * For operations that combine types (e.g., if an `if` expression's branches have types A and B, the result is `A | B`), it will use `Tilly.Type.Ops.union_types`. + * `resolve_type_specifier_node`: + * For basic type names (`Integer`, `Atom`), it will fetch their canonical `Descr` IDs. + * For type expressions like `(or TypeA TypeB)`, it will recursively resolve `TypeA` and `TypeB` to `Descr` IDs, then use `Tilly.Type.Ops.union_types`. Similarly for `(and ...)` and `(not ...)`. + * The `type_id` field in AST nodes will now store the ID of an interned `Tilly.Type.Descr`. +4. **`Til.Typer.SubtypeChecker` (Complete Rewrite):** + * `is_subtype?(descr_a_id, descr_b_id, typing_ctx)` will be implemented as: + 1. `descr_not_b_id = Tilly.Type.Ops.negation_type(descr_b_id, typing_ctx)`. + 2. `intersection_id = Tilly.Type.Ops.intersection_types(descr_a_id, descr_not_b_id, typing_ctx)`. + 3. `is_empty_type(intersection_id, typing_ctx)`. + * `is_empty_type(descr_id, typing_ctx)` checks if all BDDs within the `Descr` are the canonical `False` BDD. + +**III. Handling Specific Type Kinds from `project.md`** + +The existing type kinds in `project.md` need to be mapped to the new `Descr` model: + +* **Primitive Types:** `%{type_kind: :primitive, name: :integer}` becomes a canonical `Descr` ID where `integers_bdd_id` is "all integers" and other BDDs are empty. +* **Literal Types:** `%{type_kind: :literal, value: 42}` becomes a `Descr` ID where `integers_bdd_id` represents only `42`. +* **Union/Intersection/Negation Types:** These are no longer explicit `type_kind`s. They are results of operations in `Tilly.Type.Ops` combining other `Descr` objects. +* **Function, List, Tuple, Map Types:** + * These will be represented by `Descr` objects where the corresponding BDD (e.g., `functions_bdd_id`, `pairs_bdd_id` for lists/tuples, `records_bdd_id` for maps) is non-empty. + * The structure of these BDDs will be more complex, as outlined in CDuce (e.g., BDDs whose leaves are other BDDs, or BDDs splitting on type variables/labels). This is a more advanced step. + * Initially, `list_type(element_descr_id)` might create a `Descr` where `pairs_bdd_id` points to a BDD representing pairs whose first element matches `element_descr_id` and second is recursively a list or nil. + * The detailed map type representation from `project.md` (`known_elements`, `index_signature`) will need to be encoded into the structure of the `records_bdd_id`. This will be a complex part, drawing heavily from how CDuce handles record types with BDDs. + +``` # 2025-06-10 10:17:19.148488 +alright, I've included the adjusted plan in `set_types.md`. Lets implement it. Write tests as You go. Don't modify existing files yet, lets build this functionality alongside what we have rn. # 2025-06-10 10:18:09.919853 +y # 2025-06-10 10:18:13.159711 +/run mkdir -p lib/tilly/bdd # 2025-06-10 10:18:13.159772 +/run mkdir -p lib/tilly/bdd # 2025-06-10 10:18:13.976578 +/run mkdir -p test/tilly/bdd # 2025-06-10 10:18:13.976655 +/run mkdir -p test/tilly/bdd # 2025-06-10 10:18:14.456693 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:18:14.456790 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:18:18.043768 +y # 2025-06-10 10:20:37.246363 +You've become confused with ocaml - elixir doesn't have `let` assignments # 2025-06-10 10:22:20.361785 +y # 2025-06-10 10:22:20.365851 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:22:20.365905 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:23:13.547189 +y # 2025-06-10 10:36:23.298355 +n # 2025-06-10 10:36:26.266303 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:36:30.900189 +y # 2025-06-10 10:38:30.221939 +What's wrong? seems like You've mised in some ocaml-like syntax - this is elixir # 2025-06-10 10:38:36.666212 +y # 2025-06-10 10:38:52.809610 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:38:52.810000 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:38:56.646997 +n # 2025-06-10 10:38:58.933725 +/clear # 2025-06-10 10:39:05.761850 +/add set_types.md # 2025-06-10 10:39:26.796515 +lets proceed with the implementation - last time we've added `Tilly.BDD.Node` # 2025-06-10 10:41:10.424982 +y # 2025-06-10 10:41:12.804914 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:41:12.804997 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:41:16.040046 +y # 2025-06-10 10:41:29.164361 +lets fix those errors # 2025-06-10 10:41:55.773953 +y # 2025-06-10 10:41:55.777547 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:41:55.777640 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:42:01.822185 +y # 2025-06-10 10:43:56.787949 +alright, lets proceed with the implementation # 2025-06-10 10:44:22.984406 +y # 2025-06-10 10:44:26.715037 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:44:26.715145 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:44:34.104765 +y # 2025-06-10 10:46:00.328515 +adjustment: all functions that receive a compiler `ctx` should receive it as the FIRST argument # 2025-06-10 10:49:00.518794 +y # 2025-06-10 10:49:00.527881 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:49:00.527941 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:49:08.144816 +y # 2025-06-10 10:49:29.921321 +/ask alright, what should we implement next ? # 2025-06-10 10:52:17.542341 +lets implement those changes You've mentioned just now, but without dangling `TODO`s - implement things right away if You can # 2025-06-10 10:52:41.775625 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 10:52:45.307137 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-10 10:52:49.316879 +lets implement those changes You've mentioned just now, but without dangling `TODO`s - implement things right away if You can # 2025-06-10 10:53:39.226046 +/clear # 2025-06-10 10:53:51.115922 +/drop lib/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops.ex test/tilly/bdd/integer_bool_ops_test.exs test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:53:54.995397 +/drop test/tilly/bdd/node_test.exs # 2025-06-10 10:54:20.346573 +lets proceed with the implementation, Write tests as You go # 2025-06-10 10:56:13.364257 +y # 2025-06-10 11:38:08.107718 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 11:38:08.107995 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 11:38:12.904993 +n # 2025-06-10 11:38:28.278081 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 11:38:38.067945 +/clear # 2025-06-10 11:39:01.400049 +alright, lets proceed with the implementation # 2025-06-10 11:43:42.168030 +/clear # 2025-06-10 11:43:59.511537 +/ask alright, what are our next steps with implementing set-theoritic typesi in tilly ? # 2025-06-10 12:10:56.286850 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 12:11:42.417671 +/ask I've added relevant cduce code, now lets decide which BDD operations should we now implement. Don't write the actual code yet # 2025-06-10 13:00:11.301543 +lets implement them # 2025-06-10 13:02:25.784931 +y # 2025-06-10 13:02:30.271372 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/atom_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:02:30.271457 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/atom_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:02:31.947449 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/string_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:02:31.947750 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/string_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:02:34.878370 +y # 2025-06-10 13:24:22.096681 +lets proceed with the implementation. First state what is the next logical step and then implement it . # 2025-06-10 13:41:35.302685 +y # 2025-06-10 13:41:37.726426 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/atom_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:37.726528 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/atom_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:38.741652 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/string_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:38.741773 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/string_bool_ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:39.495101 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:39.495196 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:40.342569 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:40.342668 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:41:43.097607 +y # 2025-06-10 13:41:54.141840 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 13:41:58.171761 +lets fix those errors # 2025-06-10 13:43:01.740754 +y # 2025-06-10 13:43:01.744736 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:43:01.744785 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 13:43:12.259200 +y # 2025-06-10 13:43:16.802883 +whats wrong, lets fix it # 2025-06-10 14:18:30.873138 +y # 2025-06-10 14:20:18.347319 +/run rm test/support/test_integer_bool_ops.ex # 2025-06-10 14:20:18.347514 +/run rm test/support/test_integer_bool_ops.ex # 2025-06-10 14:20:37.555502 +n # 2025-06-10 14:20:46.351115 +y # 2025-06-10 14:20:46.357543 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 14:20:46.357649 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 14:21:54.615067 +n # 2025-06-10 14:21:55.998662 +/run mix test test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 14:22:01.086420 +y # 2025-06-10 14:22:06.440150 +/tokens # 2025-06-10 14:22:59.378863 +/ask whats next in line for implementation ? dont write actual code yet, just extensively explain # 2025-06-10 14:25:09.297288 +/drop test/ # 2025-06-10 14:25:14.593635 +/clear # 2025-06-10 14:25:26.199560 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 14:25:52.028456 +lets proceed with implementation, Your plan from the previous iteration:The next logical step, according to the `set_types.md` plan (Step I.4), is to complete the implementation of generic BDD algorithms within the `Tilly.BDD.Ops` module. We have already implemented `union_bdds/3`, `leaf/3`, and a basic `split/6`. The remaining core operations to implement are: + +1. **`intersection_bdds(typing_ctx, bdd1_id, bdd2_id)`** +2. **`negation_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd_id)`** +3. **`difference_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd1_id, bdd2_id)`** + +Here's an extensive explanation of what implementing each of these involves, based on the CDuce `bdd.ml` (`MK(E)(Leaf)`) logic for ternary BDDs: + +**1. `intersection_bdds(typing_ctx, bdd1_id, bdd2_id)`** + +* **Purpose**: Computes the intersection of two BDDs, `bdd1` and `bdd2`. +* **Caching**: This function will be a public wrapper around an internal `do_intersection_bdds` (similar to `union_bdds`). The public function will call `apply_op(typing_ctx, :intersection, bdd1_id, bdd2_id)` to handle caching. The cache key will be canonical for commutative operations (e.g., `{:intersection, min(id1,id2), max(id1,id2)}`). +* **`do_intersection_bdds` Implementation**: + * **Terminal Cases**: + * If `bdd1_id == bdd2_id`, return `bdd1_id`. + * If `bdd1_id` is `False` or `bdd2_id` is `False`, return `False`. + * If `bdd1_id` is `True`, return `bdd2_id`. + * If `bdd2_id` is `True`, return `bdd1_id`. + * **Recursive Step (`perform_intersection`)**: Fetch node data for `bdd1_id` (structure `s1`, `ops_m1`) and `bdd2_id` (`s2`, `ops_m2`). Assume `ops_m1 == ops_m2 == ops_m`. + * **Both Leaves**: If `s1` is `{:leaf, v1}` and `s2` is `{:leaf, v2}`: + * Compute `new_leaf_val = ops_m.intersection_leaves(typing_ctx, v1, v2)`. + * Return `Ops.leaf(typing_ctx, new_leaf_val, ops_m)`. + * **One Split, One Leaf**: If `s1` is `{:split, x1, p1, i1, n1}` and `s2` is `{:leaf, _v2}` (i.e., `bdd2_id` represents the leaf BDD): + * Recursively compute: + * `{ctx, new_p1} = intersection_bdds(typing_ctx, p1, bdd2_id)` + * `{ctx, new_i1} = intersection_bdds(ctx, i1, bdd2_id)` + * `{ctx, new_n1} = intersection_bdds(ctx, n1, bdd2_id)` + * Return `Ops.split(ctx, x1, new_p1, new_i1, new_n1, ops_m)`. + * The case where `s1` is leaf and `s2` is split is symmetric. + * **Both Splits**: If `s1` is `{:split, x1, p1, i1, n1}` and `s2` is `{:split, x2, p2, i2, n2}`: + * Compare `x1` and `x2` using `ops_m.compare_elements(x1, x2)`. + * **`x1 == x2`**: + * `{ctx, p2_u_i2} = union_bdds(typing_ctx, p2, i2)` + * `{ctx, n2_u_i2} = union_bdds(ctx, n2, i2)` + * `{ctx, p1_i_p2ui2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, p1, p2_u_i2)` + * `{ctx, p2_i_i1} = intersection_bdds(ctx, p2, i1)` + * `{ctx, new_p} = union_bdds(ctx, p1_i_p2ui2, p2_i_i1)` + * `{ctx, new_i} = intersection_bdds(ctx, i1, i2)` + * `{ctx, n1_i_n2ui2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, n1, n2_u_i2)` + * `{ctx, n2_i_i1} = intersection_bdds(ctx, n2, i1)` + * `{ctx, new_n} = union_bdds(ctx, n1_i_n2ui2, n2_i_i1)` + * Return `Ops.split(ctx, x1, new_p, new_i, new_n, ops_m)`. + This follows the CDuce formula: `split x1 ((p1**(p2++i2))++(p2**i1)) (i1**i2) ((n1**(n2++i2))++(n2**i1))`. + * **`x1 < x2`**: (BDD1 is `b`, BDD2 is `a` in CDuce `a ** b`) + * `{ctx, p1_i_bdd2} = intersection_bdds(typing_ctx, p1, bdd2_id)` + * `{ctx, i1_i_bdd2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, i1, bdd2_id)` + * `{ctx, n1_i_bdd2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, n1, bdd2_id)` + * Return `Ops.split(ctx, x1, p1_i_bdd2, i1_i_bdd2, n1_i_bdd2, ops_m)`. + * **`x1 > x2`**: (BDD1 is `a`, BDD2 is `b` in CDuce `a ** b`) + * `{ctx, bdd1_i_p2} = intersection_bdds(typing_ctx, bdd1_id, p2)` + * `{ctx, bdd1_i_i2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, bdd1_id, i2)` + * `{ctx, bdd1_i_n2} = intersection_bdds(ctx, bdd1_id, n2)` + * Return `Ops.split(ctx, x2, bdd1_i_p2, bdd1_i_i2, bdd1_i_n2, ops_m)`. + +**2. `negation_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd_id)`** + +* **Purpose**: Computes the negation of a BDD. +* **Caching**: Public wrapper calling `apply_op(typing_ctx, :negation, bdd_id, nil)`. +* **`do_negation_bdd` Implementation**: + * **Terminal Cases**: + * If `bdd_id` is `True`, return `False`. + * If `bdd_id` is `False`, return `True`. + * **Recursive Step (`perform_negation`)**: Fetch node data for `bdd_id` (structure `s`, `ops_m`). + * **Leaf**: If `s` is `{:leaf, v}`: + * Compute `neg_leaf_val = ops_m.negation_leaf(typing_ctx, v)`. + * Return `Ops.leaf(typing_ctx, neg_leaf_val, ops_m)`. + * **Split**: If `s` is `{:split, x, p, i, n}`: + * The general CDuce formula is `~~i ** split x (~~p) (~~(p++n)) (~~n)`. + * This translates to: + * `{ctx, neg_i} = negation_bdd(typing_ctx, i)` + * `{ctx, neg_p} = negation_bdd(ctx, p)` + * `{ctx, p_u_n} = union_bdds(ctx, p, n)` + * `{ctx, neg_p_u_n} = negation_bdd(ctx, p_u_n)` + * `{ctx, neg_n} = negation_bdd(ctx, n)` + * `{ctx, split_part} = Ops.split(ctx, x, neg_p, neg_p_u_n, neg_n, ops_m)` + * Return `intersection_bdds(ctx, neg_i, split_part)`. + * The CDuce source also lists specialized versions if `p`, `i`, or `n` are `False`. We might implement the general case first and consider optimizations later if `Ops.split` guarantees certain children are `False` (which it currently doesn't for the `i` branch). + +**3. `difference_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd1_id, bdd2_id)`** + +* **Purpose**: Computes the difference of two BDDs (`bdd1 - bdd2`). +* **Implementation Option 1 (Simpler)**: + * Define it as `bdd1 INTERSECTION (NEGATION bdd2)`. + * `{ctx, neg_bdd2_id} = negation_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd2_id)` + * `intersection_bdds(ctx, bdd1_id, neg_bdd2_id)` + * This leverages existing functions and their caching. +* **Implementation Option 2 (Direct, as per CDuce `//`)**: + * This would involve a new `apply_op(typing_ctx, :difference, ...)` and a `do_difference_bdds` function. + * **Terminal Cases**: + * If `bdd1_id == bdd2_id`, return `False`. + * If `bdd1_id` is `False`, return `False`. + * If `bdd2_id` is `True`, return `False`. + * If `bdd2_id` is `False`, return `bdd1_id`. + * If `bdd1_id` is `True`, return `negation_bdd(typing_ctx, bdd2_id)`. + * **Recursive Step (`perform_difference`)**: + * **Both Leaves**: `Ops.leaf(ops_m.difference_leaves(...))` (requires `difference_leaves` in ops modules, or calculate as `v1 && !v2`). For boolean leaves, this is `v1 and (not v2)`. + * **Split vs. Split (`s1 = (x1,p1,i1,n1)`, `s2 = (x2,p2,i2,n2)`)**: + * `x1 == x2`: + CDuce: `if i2 == empty && n2 == empty then split x1 (p1 // p2) (i1 // p2) (n1 ++ i1) else split x1 ((p1 ++ i1) // (p2 ++ i2)) empty ((n1 ++ i1) // (n2 ++ i2))` + This requires checking if `i2` and `n2` are `False` (empty). The resulting split node for the second case has `i` as `False` (empty). + * `x1 < x2`: `split x1 (p1 // bdd2_id) (i1 // bdd2_id) (n1 // bdd2_id)` + * `x1 > x2`: `split x2 ((bdd1_id // (i2 ++ p2))) empty (bdd1_id // (i2 ++ n2))` (Note: `empty` here means `False` BDD ID). + * **Other cases (Split vs. Leaf)**: Would follow the `a ** neg b` pattern or specific derivations. + * For initial implementation, Option 1 is generally preferred for simplicity and to reuse robust, cached operations. + +These implementations will heavily rely on the `apply_op` caching mechanism to manage performance, as the recursive calls can create many overlapping subproblems. The `ops_module` functions (`compare_elements`, `*_leaves`) provide the type-specific logic at the base of these recursive algorithms. + # 2025-06-10 14:27:56.173272 +y # 2025-06-10 14:27:56.180679 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:27:56.180726 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:28:06.948938 +n # 2025-06-10 14:28:21.196664 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:29:04.801087 +n # 2025-06-10 14:29:06.475358 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:29:21.995831 +n # 2025-06-10 14:29:23.298909 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:30:12.670382 +n # 2025-06-10 14:30:14.501022 +/run mix test # 2025-06-10 14:30:18.573566 +y # 2025-06-10 14:30:31.472340 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 14:31:06.717823 +/ask whats next in line for implementation ? dont write actual code yet, just extensively explain. Did we finish everythink we've done so far ? # 2025-06-10 15:28:30.525394 +/ask @ next step - `absent_marker_bdd_id` -> nil is an atom in elixir and will be modelled with `atoms_bdd_id` -> what is the `absent_marker` beeing used for then ? # 2025-06-10 15:32:54.337246 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 15:33:10.440352 +alright lets proceed with implementation, write/adjust tests as you go # 2025-06-10 15:38:20.017185 +y # 2025-06-10 15:38:26.921924 +/run mix test test/tilly/type_test.exs # 2025-06-10 15:38:26.922169 +/run mix test test/tilly/type_test.exs # 2025-06-10 15:38:30.311998 +y # 2025-06-10 15:38:43.268983 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 15:38:51.577625 +/ask whats next in line for implementation ? dont write actual code yet, just extensively explain. Did we finish everythink we've done so far ? # 2025-06-10 15:48:59.197602 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 15:49:09.802515 +alright lets proceed with implementation, write/adjust tests as you go # 2025-06-10 15:50:54.273805 +y # 2025-06-10 15:50:57.466955 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/store_test.exs # 2025-06-10 15:50:57.467104 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/store_test.exs # 2025-06-10 15:51:01.512369 +y # 2025-06-10 15:51:05.202424 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 16:08:08.760337 +/ask whats next in line for implementation ? dont write actual code yet, just extensively explain. Did we finish everythink we've done so far ? # 2025-06-10 16:37:33.693065 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 16:37:50.973955 +alright lets proceed with implementation, write/adjust tests as you go # 2025-06-10 17:40:53.422192 +y # 2025-06-10 17:40:56.293447 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 17:40:56.293511 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 17:41:03.833641 +y # 2025-06-10 17:42:03.525509 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 17:42:06.091946 +fix it # 2025-06-10 18:25:45.339952 +y # 2025-06-10 18:25:45.345460 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 18:25:45.345571 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 18:26:06.080004 +y # 2025-06-10 18:26:19.352121 +what went wrong ? lets fix it # 2025-06-10 19:11:32.807363 +y # 2025-06-10 19:11:32.814223 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 19:11:32.814301 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 19:12:00.316619 +n # 2025-06-10 19:12:03.263342 +/clear # 2025-06-10 19:12:06.565862 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 19:12:23.731832 +/drop test/ # 2025-06-10 19:12:27.769020 +/add test/tilly/bdd/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 19:12:35.938880 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 19:12:39.033088 +y # 2025-06-10 19:12:51.840354 +What's wrong? lets find the error in our logic and fix it # 2025-06-10 20:44:03.067864 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 20:44:07.567359 +n # 2025-06-10 20:44:11.327777 +/drop cduce_code.md # 2025-06-10 20:44:15.783486 +/clear # 2025-06-10 20:44:18.224031 +/run mix test test/tilly/type/ops_test.exs # 2025-06-10 20:44:21.044488 +y # 2025-06-10 20:44:34.070239 +/ask lets debug why the tests fail # 2025-06-13 10:08:44.631798 +n # 2025-06-13 10:09:21.353382 +/models # 2025-06-13 10:09:26.077809 +/models gem # 2025-06-13 10:24:32.189363 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-13 10:24:39.391367 +/ask whats this repo about ? # 2025-06-13 10:29:01.708935 +n # 2025-06-13 10:29:14.493753 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-13 10:29:16.335685 +/ask whats this repo about ? # 2025-06-13 10:52:35.637990 +n # 2025-06-13 10:52:43.696062 +/ask whats this repo about ? # 2025-06-13 10:57:48.327202 +n # 2025-06-13 10:57:51.418254 +/ask whats this repo about ? # 2025-06-13 10:58:32.431480 +/clear # 2025-06-13 10:58:44.084394 +/add project.md set_types.md # 2025-06-13 11:01:17.347902 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 11:01:21.074651 +y # 2025-06-13 11:01:55.820605 +/ask I want to proceed with the implementation, but I've got some failing tests. Which files do I need to include to help You investigate the issue and fix them ? # 2025-06-13 11:03:28.182137 +y # 2025-06-13 11:17:25.748061 + y # 2025-06-13 11:17:31.926612 +y # 2025-06-13 11:29:43.903074 +ok, lets proceed with this fix # 2025-06-13 11:52:33.538712 +n # 2025-06-13 11:52:47.559020 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 11:52:50.878044 +y # 2025-06-13 11:52:52.860588 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-13 13:01:59.562790 +/clear # 2025-06-13 13:02:03.594708 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 13:02:07.099625 +y # 2025-06-13 13:02:09.049460 +What's wrong? Fix it # 2025-06-13 13:05:32.792033 +/clear # 2025-06-13 13:05:34.722111 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 13:05:40.984525 +y # 2025-06-13 13:05:50.437789 +/ask why does it fail ? # 2025-06-13 13:10:48.445922 +lets fix it # 2025-06-13 13:12:40.530495 +y # 2025-06-13 13:12:40.535217 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 13:12:40.535347 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 13:12:44.508990 +y # 2025-06-13 13:12:46.934272 +/clear # 2025-06-13 13:12:48.483551 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 13:12:51.193990 +y # 2025-06-13 13:13:00.906766 +/ask What's wrong? the test still fails # 2025-06-13 14:06:22.512367 +n # 2025-06-13 14:06:27.084040 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 14:06:30.667258 +y # 2025-06-13 14:06:32.852330 +/clear # 2025-06-13 14:06:34.434426 +/run mix test # 2025-06-13 14:06:36.180372 +y # 2025-06-13 14:06:43.698302 +/ask What's wrong? lets investigate # 2025-06-13 14:18:05.323943 +y # 2025-06-13 18:46:40.959003 +/add cduce_code.md # 2025-06-13 18:46:58.534222 +I've added `cduce_code` file with the cduce implementation of bdd -> lets fix our error # 2025-06-13 18:48:07.920080 +y # 2025-06-15 02:19:44.496228 +n # 2025-06-15 02:23:11.675263 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-15 11:53:28.432969 +n # 2025-06-15 11:54:06.645621 +/map-refresh # 2025-06-15 11:54:11.240897 +/add lib/til/tdd.ex # 2025-06-15 11:54:52.625145 +/ask Please help me refine the theory for impementing set-theoritic types with this # 2025-06-15 11:55:46.654825 +n # 2025-06-15 11:56:09.668461 +/context # 2025-06-16 11:51:48.065221 +n # 2025-06-19 10:22:37.019564 +/clear # 2025-06-19 10:25:14.825350 +/ask I've got a problem with debugging this thing. In some test cases I need to access a detailed trace of whats going on. Most of the time I don't care, because they pass. We need to add detailed logs which i can enable only for a select test case via a Process switch. Lets design it