refactor: predicate lang #7851
refactor: predicate lang #7851
Conversation
Individual constructors for true/false. This gives a more compact representation for these common forms. Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg <me@rgrinberg.com> <!-- ps-id: 350c2ebf-35aa-4998-8b66-02f37f372e9c -->
| @@ -94,6 +96,8 @@ and decode f = many f or_ [] | |||
| let rec encode f = | |||
| let open Encoder in | |||
| function | |||
| | True -> encode f (Or []) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That seems odd: I'd expect something like True -> encode f True here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did you make a typo? That would just be an infinite loop then.
It is odd, but I'm afraid it's unavoidable as we don't have a way to represent true or false as literals in the predicate language. We could introduce :true and :false for example though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, sorry, I meant mapping True and False to the corresponding constants in the predicate language, like :true and :false, for example.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My thinking is: if we allow (or ()) in the language, we better also allow (:true) for clarity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed, but this is actually a change that needs versioning. On the rules side, we must only accept this starting from 3.9. On the engine side, would we need to bump the action digest version because we aren't serializing Predicate_lang.true_ in the same way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, we can do this later, of course.
Individual constructors for true/false.
This gives a more compact representation for these common forms.
Signed-off-by: Rudi Grinberg me@rgrinberg.com