Skip to content

Build an independent OverPy-compatible engine with canonical Workshop integration #1

Description

@Teakowa

Goal

Build opy-rs into an independent, corpus-backed implementation of OverPy source-language semantics and connect it to canonical Workshop semantics without duplicating Workshop ownership.

Current status

The independent source-language implementation and first OPY→Workshop compiler baseline are established.

Completed integration baseline:

The released opy-rs / opy-compiler v0.1.5 contract is consumed by Wright's source-language ownership cutover in wright#228.

Active compatibility frontier

The next work is no longer the old #42 → #36 → #37 → #38 chain. Concrete residual gaps discovered by executable compiler evidence are now split by ownership:

Use the owner sequence for each gap:

owning contract/tests -> released consumable contract -> opy-rs integration -> corpus/real-workflow verification

Do not add text-reparse fallbacks or duplicate Workshop semantics in opy-rs to hide owner gaps.

Separate/non-gating work

Durable data flow

OPY source -> parse/preprocess -> semantic resolution/HIR -> opy-compiler -> workshop-rs WIR -> Workshop text

Ownership

  • opy-rs owns OverPy syntax, preprocessing/macros, semantic resolution, HIR, diagnostics/provenance, tooling APIs, compiler behavior, and scoped reconstruction.
  • workshop-rs owns canonical Workshop semantics, catalog, WIR, settings/localization, validation, emission, and Workshop semantic carriers.
  • Wright is a consumer/integration layer and must not compensate for missing OPY or Workshop semantics.

Acceptance criteria

  • The OPY language/tooling implementation remains independently useful and evidence-backed.
  • Supported OPY programs compile through canonical WIR and Workshop emission with structured diagnostics and preserved provenance.
  • Compatibility advances are grounded in representative real-world/corpus evidence; known gaps remain explicit.
  • No authoritative Workshop ownership is duplicated in opy-rs.
  • Reconstruction, if pursued, uses a separately reviewed semantic-equivalence/useful-source contract rather than promising literal recovery.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    Status
    Ready

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions