Mike Gerwitz

Activist for User Freedom

path: root/core
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* core/base (___yield): New externMike Gerwitz2022-05-161-1/+3
| | | | | | | | | | Rather than having the linker add this symbol opaquely, let's remove the special case and generalize it. There's nothing special about yield, except historical precedent. Systems can explicitly add it as a root in a common return map. DEV-11864
* Copyright year update 2022Mike Gerwitz2022-05-0357-57/+57
| | | | | | RSG (Ryan Specialty Group) recently announced a rename to Ryan Specialty (no "Group"), but I'm not sure if the legal name has been changed yet or not, so I'll wait on that.
* tame: @encoding="{ISO-8859-1=>utf-8}" for all XML-based filesMike Gerwitz2022-05-0222-22/+22
| | | | | | | | TAMER rejects this, because we shouldn't be using anything but UTF-8. My use of this encoding is ancient, from over a decade ago, that was apparently just copied around. DEV-10936
* [DEV-11788] Add upper & lower abbreviation for statesCorey Vollmer2022-03-311-51/+51
* x/0=0 with global flag for new classification systemMike Gerwitz2022-02-281-0/+5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This was originally my plan with the new classification system, but it was undone because I had hoped to punt on the somewhat controversial issue. Unfortunately, I see no other way. Here I attempt to summarize the reasons why, many of which are specific to the design decisions of TAME. Keep in mind that TAME is a domain-specific language (DSL) for writing insurance rating systems. It should act intuitively for our use case, while still being mathematically sound. If you still aren't convinced, please see the link at the bottom. Target Language Semantics (ECMAScript) -------------------------------------- First: let's establish what happens today. TAME compiles into ECMAScript, which uses IEEE 754-2008 floating-point arithmetic. Here we have: x/0 = Infinity, x > 0; x/0 = -Infinity, x < 0; 0/0 = NaN, x = 0. This is immediately problematic: TAME's calculations must produce concrete real numbers, always. NaN is not valid in its domain, and Infinity is of no practical use in our computational model (TAME is build for insurance rating systems, and one will never have infinite premium). Put plainly: the behavior is undefined in TAME when any of these values are yielded by an expression. Furthermore, we have _three different possible situations_ depending on whether the numerator is positive, negative, or zero. This makes it more difficult to reason about the behavior of the system, for values we do not want in the first place. We then have these issues in ECMAScript: Infinity * 0 = NaN. -Infinity * 0 = NaN. NaN * 0 = NaN. These are of particular concern because of how predicates work in TAME, which will be discussed further below. But it is also problematic because of how it propagates: once you have NaN, you'll always have NaN, unless you break out of the situation with some control structure that avoids using it in an expression at all. Let's now consider predicates: NaN > 0 = false. NaN < 0 = false. NaN === 0 = false. NaN === NaN = false. These will be discussed in terms of classification predicates (matches). We also have issues of serialization: JSON.stringify(Infinity) = "null". JSON.stringify(NaN) = "null". These means that these values are difficult to transfer between systems, even if we wanted them. TAME's Predicates ----------------- TAME has a classification system based on first-order logic, where ⊥ is represented by 0 and ⊤ is represented by 1. These classifications are used as predicates to calculations via the @class attribute of a rate block. For example: <rate-each class="property" generates="propValue" index="k"> <c:quotient> <c:value-of name="buildingTiv" index="k" /> <c:value-of name="tivPropDivisor" index="k" /> </c:quotient> </rate> As can be observed via the Summary Page, this calculation compiles into the following mathematical expression: ∑ₖ(pₖ(tₖ/dₖ)), that is—the quotient is then multiplied by the value of the `property` classification, which is a 0 or 1 respectively for that index. Let's say that tivPropDivisor were defined in this way: <rate-each class="property" generates="tivPropDivisor" index="k"> <!--- ... logic here ... --> </rate> It does not matter what the logic here is. Observe that the predicate here is `property` as well, which means that, if this risk is not a property risk, then `tivPropDivisor` will be `0`. Looking back at `propValue`, let's say that we do have a property risk, and that `buildingTiv` is `[100_000, 200_000]` and `tivPropDivisor` is 1000. We then have: 1(100,000 / 1000) + 1(200,000 / 1000)) = 300. Consider instead what happens if `property` is 0. Since we have no property locations, we have `[0, 0]` as `buildingTiv` and `tivPropDivisor` is 0. 0(0/0) + 0(0/0)) = 0(NaN + NaN) = NaN. This is clearly not what was intended. The predicate is expected to be _strongly_ zero, as if using an Iverson bracket: ((0/0)[0] + (0/0)[0]) = 0. Of course, one option is to redefine TAME such that we use Iverson's convention in place of summation, however this is neither necessary nor desirable given that (a) NaN is not valid within the domain of any TAME expression, and (b) Summation is elegantly generalized and efficiently computed using vector arithmetic and SIMD functions. That is: there's no use in messing with TAME's computational model for a valid that should be impossible to represent. Short-Circuiting Computation ---------------------------- There's another way to look at it, though: that we intended to skip the computation entirely, and so it doesn't matter what the quotient is. If the compiler were smart enough (and maybe one day it will be), it would know that the predicate of `tivPropDivisor` and `propValue` are the same and so there is no circumstance under which we would compute `propValue` and have `tivPropDivisor` be 0. The problem is: that short-circuiting is employed as an _optimization_, and is an implementation detail. Mathematically, the expression is unchanged, and is still invalid within TAME's domain. It is unrepresentable, and so this is not an out. But let's pretend that it was defined that way, which would yield this: { ∑ₖ(pₖ(tₖ/dₖ)), ∀x∈p(x = 1); propValue = < { 0, otherwise. This is the optimization that is employed, but it's still not mathematically correct! What happens if p₀ = 1, but p₁ = 0? Then we have: 1(100,000/1000) + 0(0/0) = 100 + NaN = NaN, but the _intent_ was clearly to have 100 + 0 = 100, and so we return to the original problem once again. Classification Predicates and Intent ------------------------------------ Classifications are used as predicates for equations, but classifications _themselves_ have predicates in the form of _matches_. Consider, for example, a classification that may be used in an assertion to prevent negative premium from being generated: <t:assert failure="premBuilding must not be negative for any index"> <t:match-gte value="premBuilding" value="#0" /> </t:assert> Simple enough—the system will fail if the premium for a given building is below $0. But what happens if premBuilding is calculated as so? <rate-each class="property" yields="premBuildingTotal" generates="premBuilding" index="k"> <c:product> <c:value-of name="propValue" index="k" /> <c:value-of name="propRate" index="k" /> </c:product> </rate-each> Alas, if `property` is false for any index, then we know that `propValue` is NaN, and NaN * x = NaN, and so `premBuilding` is NaN. The above assertion will compile the match into the first-order sentence ∀x∈b(x > 0). Unfortunately, NaN is not greater than, less than, equal to, or any other sort of thing to 0, and so _this assertion will trigger_. This causes practical problems with the `_premium_` template, which has an `@allow-zero@` argument to permit zero premium. Consider this real-world case that I found (variables renamed), to avoid a strawman: <t:premium class="loc" round="cent" yields="locInitialTotal" generates="locInitial" index="k" allow-zero="true" desc="..."> <c:value-of name="premAdditional" /> <c:quotient> <c:value-of name="premLoc" index="k" /> <c:value-of name="premTotal" /> </c:quotient> </t:premium> This appears to be responsible for splitting up `premAdditional` relative to the total premium contribution of each location. It explicitly states that it wants to permit a zero value. The intent of this block is clear: a value of 0 is explicitly permitted and _expected_. But if `premTotal` is for whatever reason 0—whether it be due to a test case or some unexpected input—then it'll yield a NaN and make the entire expression NaN. Or if `premAdditional` or `premLoc` are tainted by a NaN, the same result will occur. The assertion will trigger. And, indeed, this is what I'm seeing with test cases against the new classification system. What about Infinity? Is it intuitive that, should `propValue` in the previous example be positive and `propRate` be 0, that we would, rather than producing a very small value, produce an infinitely large one? Does that match intuition? Remember, this system is a domain-specific language for _our_ purposes—it is not intended to be used to model infinities. For example, say we had this submission because the premium exceeds our authority to write with some carrier: <t:submit reason="Premium exceeds authority"> <t:match-gt name="premBuilding" value="#100k" /> </t:submit> If we had (100,000 / 0) = ∞, then this submit reason would trigger. Surely that was not intended, since we have `property` as a predicate and `propRate` with the same predicate, implying that the answer we _actually_ want is 0! In that case, what we _probably_ want to trigger is something like <rate yields="premFinal"> <t:maxreduce> <c:value-of name="premBuildingTotal" /> <c:value-of name="#500" /> </t:maxreduce> </rate>, in order to apply a minimum premium of $500. But if `premBuildingTotal` is Infinity, then you won't get that—you'll get Infinity, which is of course nonsense. And nevermind -Infinity. Why Wasn't This a Problem Before? --------------------------------- So why bring this up now? Why have we survived a decade without this? We haven't, really—these bugs have been hidden. But the old classification system covered them up; predicates would implicitly treat missing values as 0 by enclosing them in `(x||0)` in the compiled code. Observe this ECMAScript code: NaN || 0 = 0. Consequently, the old classification system absorbed bad values and treated them implicitly as 0. But that was a bug, and had to be removed; it meant that missing indexes in classifications would trigger predicates that were not intended to be triggered, if they matched against 0, or matched against a value less than some number larger than zero. (See `core/test/core/class` for examples.) The new classification system does not perform such defaulting. _But it also does not expect to receive values outside of its valid domain._ Consequently, _NaN and Infinity lead to undefined behavior_, and the current implementation causes the predicate to match (NaN < 0) and therefore fail. The reason for this is because that this implementation is intended to convey precisely the computation necessary for the classification system, as formally defined, so that it can be later optimized even further. Checking for values outside the domain not only should not be necessary, but it would prevent such future optimizations. Furthermore, parameters used to compile into (param||0), to account for missing values or empty strings. This changed somewhat recently with 5a816a4701211adf84d3f5e09b74c67076c47675, which pre-cast all inputs and allowed relaxing many of those casts since they were both wasteful and no longer necessary. Given that, for all practical purposes, 0/0=0 in the system <1yr ago. Infinity, of course, is a different story, since (Infinity||0)=Infinity; this one has always been a problem. Let's Just Fail --------------- Okay, so we cannot have a valid expression, so let's just fail. We could mean that in two different ways: 1. Fail at runtime if we divide by 0; or 2. Fail at compile-time if we _could_ divide by 0. Both of these have their own challenges. Let's dismiss #2 right off the bat for now, because until we have TAMER, that's not really feasible. We need something today. We will discuss that in the future. For #1—we cannot just throw an error and halt computation, because if the `canterm` flag passed into the system is `false`, then _computation must proceed and return all results_. Terminating classifications are checked after returning rather than throwing errors. Since we have to proceed with computation, then the computations have to be valid, and so we're left with the same problem again—we cannot have undefined behavior. One could argue that, okay, we have undefined behavior, but we're going to fail because of the assertion anyway! That's potentially defensible, but it is at the moment undesirable, because we get so many failures. And, relative to the section below, it's not clear to me what benefit we get from that behavior other than making things more difficult for ourselves. Furthermore, such an assertion would have to be defined for every calculation that performs a quotient, and would have to set some intermediate flag in the calculation which would then have to be checked for after-the-fact. This muddies the generated calculation, which causes problems for optimizations, because it requires peering into state of the calculation that may be hidden or optimized away. If we decide that calculations must be valid because we cannot fail, and we have to stick with the domain of calculations, then `x/0` must be _something_ within that domain. x/0=0 Makes Sense With the Current System ----------------------------------------- Let's take a step back. Consider a developer who is unaware that NaN/Infinity are permitted in the system—they just know that division by zero is a bad thing to do because that's what they learned, and they want to avoid it in their code. Consider that they started with this: <rate-each class="property" generates="propValue" index="k"> <c:quotient> <c:value-of name="buildingTiv" index="k" /> <c:value-of name="tivPropDivisor" index="k" /> </c:quotient> </rate> They have inspected the output of `tivPropDivisor` and see that it is sometimes 0. They understand that `property` is a predicate for the calculation, and so reasonably think that they could do something like this: <classify as="nonzero-tiv-prop-divisor" ...> <t:match-ne on="tivPropDivisor" value="#0" /> </classify> and then change the rate-each to <rate-each class="property nonzero-tiv-prop-divisor" ...>. Except that, of course, we know that will have no effect, because a NaN is a NaN. This is not intuitive. So they'd have to do this: <rate-each class="property" generates="propValue" index="k"> <c:cases> <c:case> <t:when-ne name="tivPropDivisor" value="#0" /> <c:quotient> <c:value-of name="buildingTiv" index="k" /> <c:value-of name="tivPropDivisor" index="k" /> </c:quotient> </c:case> <c:otherwise> <c:value-of name="#0" /> </c:otherwise> </c:cases> </rate>. But for what purpose? What have we gained over simply having x/0=0, which does this for you? The reason why this is so unintuitive is because 0 is the default case in every other part of the system. If something doesn't match a predicate, the value becomes 0. If a value at an index is not defined, it is implicitly zero. A non-matching predicate is 0. This is exploited for reducing values using summation. So the behavior of the system with regards to 0 is always on the mind of the developer. If we add it in another spot, they would think nothing of it. It would be nice if it acted as an identity in a monoidic operation, e.g. as 0 for sums but as 1 for products, but that's not how the system works at all today. And indeed such a thing could be introduced using a special template in place of `c:value-of` that copies the predicates of the referenced value and does the right thing. The _danger_, of course, is that this is _not_ how the system as worked, and so changing the behavior has the risk of breaking something that has relied on undefined behavior for so long. This is indeed a risk, but I have taken some confident in (a) all the test cases for our system pass despite a significant number of x/0=0 being triggered due to limited inputs, and (b) these situations are _not correct today_, resulting in `null` in serialized result data because `JSON.stringify([NaN, Infinity]) === "[null, null]"`. Given all of that, predictable incorrect behavior is better than undefined behavior. So x/0=0 Isn't Bad? ------------------- No, and it's mathematically sound. This decision isn't unprecedented— Coq, Lean, Agda, and other theorem provers define x/0=0. APL originally defined x/0=1, but later switched to 0. Other languages do their own thing depending on what is right for their particular situation. Division is normally derived from a × a⁻¹ = 1, a ≠ 0. We're simply not using that definition—when we say "quotient", or use the `/` symbol, we mean a _different_ function (`div`, in the compiled JS), where we have an _additional_ axiom that a / 0 = 0. And, similarly, 0⁻¹ = 0. So we've taken a _normally undefined_ case and given it a definition. No inconsistency arises. In fact, this makes _sense_ to do, because _this is what we want_. The alternative, as mentioned above, is a lot of boilerplate—checking for 0 any time we want to do division. Complicating the compiler to check for those cases. And so on. It's easier to simple state that, in TAME, quotients have this extra convenient feature whereby you don't have to worry about your denominator being zero because it'll act as though you enclosed it in a case statement, and because of that, all your code continues to operate in an intuitive way. I really recommend reading this blog post regarding the Lean theorem prover: https://xenaproject.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/division-by-zero-in-type-theory-a-faq/
* core/vector: Remove aggregate packageMike Gerwitz2022-01-281-37/+0
| | | | | Like core/numeric, this was to maintain BC and has not been used for many years (it does not even build).
* core/build.xml: RemoveMike Gerwitz2022-01-281-22/+0
| | | | | This is no longer necessary (and proably never was). I assume that this was added when I was trying to get core to build independently.
* core/numeric: Remove aggregate packageMike Gerwitz2022-01-281-33/+0
| | | | | This package was originally added long ago when it was split into multiple. It is no longer used.
* Copyright year update 2021Mike Gerwitz2021-07-2258-58/+58
* Correct behavior of matrix matching with separate index sets in new systemMike Gerwitz2021-06-231-4/+479
| | | | | This behavior was largely correct, but was not commutative if the size of the matrices (rows or columns) was smaller than a following match.
* Reintroduce legacy classification system, place new behind flagMike Gerwitz2021-06-231-141/+190
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This largely reintroduces the legacy classification system, but there are a number of things that are not affected by the flag. For example: 1. Alias classifications are still optimized when the flag is off; 2. Classifications without predicates emit slightly different code than before, though their functionality has not changed; 3. There's been a lot of refactoring and minor optimizations that are unaffected by the flag; 4. lv:match/@pattern will now emit a warning; and 5. Cleaning and casting of input data is not gated. This allows us to incrementally migrate to the new system where behavior may be different, but this is admittedly a bit dangerous in that the new system was aggressively tested and reasoned about, so reintroducing the legacy system may combine in unexpected ways.
* core/test/class: Begin classification system test casesMike Gerwitz2021-06-093-0/+276
| | | | These are incomplete, but a start.
* core/base (_use-new-classification-system): New templateMike Gerwitz2021-06-091-0/+30
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This template prepares for the introduction of the new classification system, which is a full rewrite that is both more performant and more correct in its behavior. Unfortunately, the corrections will cause problems with old code that may be relying on certain cases, particularly where undefined values are implicitly treated as zero. Consequently, the legacy and new systems will exist side-by-side, able to be toggled on as desired so people can verify that behavior is correct before we switch it on by default. This template allows switching on the system for an entire package (if it's placed at the toplevel), or portions of a package, though the latter should only be used in exceptional circumstances. See the test cases in commits to follow for more information.
* core/base: Section _yield_ and _rate-each_Mike Gerwitz2021-06-081-62/+69
* core/aggregate: Remove packageMike Gerwitz2021-06-083-419/+0
| | | | | | | This package is not used today. See RELEASES.md for more information; This is a dangerous package that never should have existed. This also fixes the test suite.
* [DEV-8947] Make mrange fully tail-recursive and enable TCOMike Gerwitz2020-12-091-37/+127
| | | | | | | | | | | | We were still having issues with this function when taking the positive branch, when predicates cause many matches within tables. This was causing us to hit stack limits in certain browsers on the Summary Page. This converts it to an iterator so that all branches are tail-recursive, and then enables TCO on them. I was disappointed to find that there's little performance or memory benefit in running our test suite.
* [DEV-8081] Stop using accumulate in tdat templateAustin Schaffer2020-08-201-1/+1
* [DEV-8130] core: mrange: Use experimental guided TCOMike Gerwitz2020-07-151-2/+7
| | | | | This alleviates stack exhaustion issues with large rate tables where the predicates fail to reduce the search space to a reasonable size.
* core: mrange: Inline _mrange_cmpMike Gerwitz2020-07-151-117/+103
| | | | This will permit the use of TCO in the following commit.
* [DEV-7198] Replace `rate-each` macro with a templateJoseph Frazer2020-04-171-0/+55
| | | | | | | | Replacing the existing macros with templates will allow us to now have to deal with macros in the new compiler. The `indexNameType` pattern needed to change to allow for variables. I also had to remove the prefix for the `gentle-no` option of `rate`.
* [DEV-7198] Create a "yield" templateJoseph Frazer2020-04-171-0/+9
| | | | | | Create a "yield" and add backwards compatibility for the macro of the same name. This is one of 2 macros that need to be replaced so we do not have to worry about them with the new compiler.
* [DEV-7136] Add xmli filesJoseph Frazer2020-04-081-0/+1
| | | | | | | Add a new step to the build process that copies the `xml` file to an `xmli` file. Eventually, the new compiler will create the `xmli` file and the old compiler will convert it to an `amle` file during the transition.
* [DEV-7087] core: Fix extern dim defaultsMike Gerwitz2020-03-262-2/+8
* [DEV-7087] core/retry (__retry): dim=0Mike Gerwitz2020-03-261-1/+1
| | | | | Now that we will be doing extern type checks, this must be properly set.
* [DEV-7160] Do not allow terminating classifications for test runnerAustin Schaffer2020-03-121-1/+1
* [DEV-7160] Set neg-yields param in retry templateAustin Schaffer2020-03-121-1/+2
* Copyright year 2020 updateMike Gerwitz2020-03-0660-60/+60
* [DEV-6306] Add retry templateAustin Schaffer2020-02-203-0/+77
| | | | | | [DEV-6306] Add testing instructions to README.md [DEV-6306] Add assertion to retry template
* [DEV-6947] Add template to match UI valuesJoseph Frazer2020-01-311-1/+25
| | | | | | The UI values need to match AND the question needs to be visible. We do not have the visibility classifications yet, so we need to define externs to allow this to build.
* core/ui: Correct vector/cmatch import pathMike Gerwitz2019-11-271-1/+1
* core/states.xml: Remove old transition fileMike Gerwitz2019-11-271-1/+0
| | | | Everything should use core/state.
* core/test/vector (_define-vector_): Require descriptionMike Gerwitz2019-10-172-3/+5
| | | | We want things to require documentation when possible.
* vector/define: New package introducing _define-vector_Mike Gerwitz2019-10-173-0/+115
| | | | | This is intended to work around the issue of defining arbitrary vectors outside of a c:let.
* core: ui: Add _match-ui-*_ templatesMike Gerwitz2019-08-131-0/+36
| | | | | These are analaogus to the _match-*_ counterparts, but they convert @on@ into the question param and check against the applicability of the question.
* core/ui (_match-ui-applicable_): Account for applicabilityMike Gerwitz2019-07-301-1/+4
| | | | | | It doesn't makes sense to consider a question to be set if it's not even applicable. This also helps to remove a bunch of duplicate code where these templates are being used.
* core/vector/cmatch.xml (_classify-vector_): New templateMike Gerwitz2019-07-291-0/+40
| | | | This is the analog of _classify-scalar_.
* core/insurance (_credit_, _debit_)[@allow-zero@]: AddMike Gerwitz2019-03-191-0/+10
* core: Add _vfilter-mask_Mike Gerwitz2019-02-143-0/+287
| | | | | | * core/test/core/suite.xml: Import `vector/filter'. * core/test/core/vector/filter.xml: New package. * core/vector/filter.xml (_vfilter-mask_, _vfilter_mask): New template, function.
* core: Add missing _minreduce_ @isvector@ testMike Gerwitz2019-02-131-0/+27
| | | | core/test/core/vector/minmax.xml: Add missing @isvector@ test.
* core: vector/minmax/_minreduce_: New templateMike Gerwitz2019-02-133-3/+168
| | | | | | * test/core/suite.xml: Import `test/core/vector/minmax'. * test/core/vector/minmax.xml: New package. * vector/minmax.xml (_minreduce_, _minreduce): New template, function.
* Copyright year simplification and update to Ryan Specialty GroupMike Gerwitz2019-02-0756-112/+55
| | | | | | | | | This now uses year ranges, which I'll update annually. This also renames "R-T Specialty" to "Ryan Specialty Group". The latter is the parent company of the former. I was originally employed under the former when LoVullo Associates was purchased, by I now work for the parent company.
* core: Add _where-*_ query predicate templatesMike Gerwitz2019-02-044-35/+113
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | These provide a more pleasent abstraction than having to reference CMP_OP_* constants. * core/test/core/vector/interpolate.xml: {t:when=>t:where-eq}. * core/test/core/vector/table.xml: Likewise, but using the other variants where appropriate given the value of `@op'. * core/vector/interpolate.xml: Likewise. * core/vector/table.xml (_when_, _where_): Rename former to latter and provide deprecation warning. (_when-lt_, _when-lte_, _when-gt_, _when-gte_): Add abstractions. * src/current/rater.xsd: Permit template variable as tenplate name.
* core: Add comparison operators for table query predicatesMike Gerwitz2019-02-043-36/+294
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is fairly primitive support and it completely sidesteps the bisect algorithm for now. The next commit will abstract this a little bit further to make it less awkward to use. * core/test/core/vector/table.xml: New test cases. * core/vector/filter.xml (CmpOp): New typedef. (mfilter): Document that bisecting will not happen unless `CMP_OP_EQ' is used. Implement that restriction. [op]: New parameter. Provide it to `mrange'. (_mfilter, _mrange_cmp): Rename from `_mfilter'. Implement new comparison check based on `op' [op]: New argument. * core/vector/table.xml (_when_)[@op@]: New param. Add it to the produced vector. (_mquery): Unpack op (from `_when_') in call to `mfilter'.
* Use some modern shorthands for core/vector/{table,filter}Mike Gerwitz2019-02-042-121/+51
| | | | | | | | Just trying to clean up a little as I go to start to make it easier to understand. * core/vector/filter.xml: Use _when-*_ templates and c:recurse. * core/vector/table.xml: Likewise.
* core/vector/table: Add specification for main templatesMike Gerwitz2019-02-042-1/+220
| | | | | * core/test/core/suite.xml: Import core/test/core/vector/table. * core/test/core/vector/table.xml: New specification.
* core: Replace all occurrences of c:{set=>vector}Mike Gerwitz2019-02-018-32/+32
| | | | The former is deprecated and never made any sense at all.
* test/spec: Work around expand-sequence bugMike Gerwitz2019-02-011-20/+31
| | | | | | * core/test/spec.xml (_describe_): Enclose aggregate classification in a series of nested expand-sequence to work around bug (described in comment), which was causing test cases to not be compiled.
* [BC BREAK] rater/core/insurance (_premium_): Add zero and negative assertionsMike Gerwitz2019-01-021-3/+61
| | | | | | | | | | | This is a BC break since this generates assertions by default. To maintain BC, set `@allow-zero@' and `@allow-negative@' to `true' in existing template applications. * core/insurance.xml (assert_ignore_premium_zero, assert_ignore_premium_negative): New params. (_premium_): Generate assertions. [@allow-zero@, @allow-negative@]: New params.
* rater/core/insurance (_factor_): gt{=>e} for negative assertionsMike Gerwitz2019-01-021-2/+2
* core buildMike Gerwitz2018-11-082-0/+29
| | | | | | | | | | This is the start of a working build for core. * .gitignore: Ignore generated files from configuration and build. * build.xml: Copy from rater repo. This is the last remaining ant-based dependency and can be gotten rid of; see comments. * configure.ac: New file. * rater/build-aux, rater/src: New symlinks.