Add parameter to disable early exit of expression evaluation

[nmheim]

Addresses #87.

@MilesCranmer is this roughly what you had in mind? If not, just let me know. If yes, I can also add another test with e.g. a more complicated expression. Let me know what you think!

[github-actions]

Benchmark Results

	master	17a4a24...	master/17a4a24ef4e93f...
eval/ComplexF32/evaluation	7.33 ± 0.46 ms	7.27 ± 0.46 ms	1.01
eval/ComplexF64/evaluation	9.56 ± 0.67 ms	9.58 ± 0.65 ms	0.998
eval/Float32/derivative	11 ± 1.7 ms	11 ± 1.8 ms	1.01
eval/Float32/derivative_turbo	11 ± 1.8 ms	10.9 ± 1.7 ms	1.02
eval/Float32/evaluation	2.63 ± 0.24 ms	2.63 ± 0.22 ms	1
eval/Float32/evaluation_bumper	0.586 ± 0.014 ms	0.534 ± 0.013 ms	1.1
eval/Float32/evaluation_turbo	0.563 ± 0.032 ms	0.567 ± 0.03 ms	0.994
eval/Float32/evaluation_turbo_bumper	0.574 ± 0.014 ms	0.531 ± 0.013 ms	1.08
eval/Float64/derivative	14.3 ± 1.1 ms	14.4 ± 0.77 ms	0.993
eval/Float64/derivative_turbo	14.4 ± 1.1 ms	14.4 ± 1 ms	1
eval/Float64/evaluation	2.78 ± 0.24 ms	2.78 ± 0.24 ms	1
eval/Float64/evaluation_bumper	1.28 ± 0.044 ms	1.21 ± 0.043 ms	1.06
eval/Float64/evaluation_turbo	1.06 ± 0.067 ms	1.04 ± 0.06 ms	1.02
eval/Float64/evaluation_turbo_bumper	1.29 ± 0.044 ms	1.21 ± 0.042 ms	1.06
utils/combine_operators/break_sharing	0.0386 ± 0.00069 ms	0.039 ± 0.0007 ms	0.991
utils/convert/break_sharing	22.8 ± 1.1 μs	22.9 ± 0.98 μs	0.999
utils/convert/preserve_sharing	0.124 ± 0.0034 ms	0.124 ± 0.0034 ms	1
utils/copy/break_sharing	23.5 ± 0.91 μs	23.4 ± 0.94 μs	1
utils/copy/preserve_sharing	0.125 ± 0.0036 ms	0.126 ± 0.0033 ms	0.995
utils/count_constant_nodes/break_sharing	8.61 ± 0.12 μs	9.11 ± 0.23 μs	0.945
utils/count_constant_nodes/preserve_sharing	0.109 ± 0.0024 ms	0.11 ± 0.0028 ms	0.989
utils/count_depth/break_sharing	13.4 ± 0.39 μs	10.3 ± 0.15 μs	1.3
utils/count_nodes/break_sharing	8.57 ± 0.12 μs	8.44 ± 0.16 μs	1.02
utils/count_nodes/preserve_sharing	0.111 ± 0.0026 ms	0.11 ± 0.0029 ms	1
utils/get_set_constants!/break_sharing	0.0378 ± 0.001 ms	0.0344 ± 0.0011 ms	1.1
utils/get_set_constants!/preserve_sharing	0.228 ± 0.0063 ms	0.228 ± 0.006 ms	1
utils/get_set_constants_parametric	0.0481 ± 0.0022 ms	0.0475 ± 0.0018 ms	1.01
utils/has_constants/break_sharing	4.37 ± 0.064 μs	4.2 ± 0.075 μs	1.04
utils/has_operators/break_sharing	2.08 ± 0.033 μs	1.94 ± 0.022 μs	1.07
utils/hash/break_sharing	25.6 ± 0.43 μs	25.4 ± 0.42 μs	1.01
utils/hash/preserve_sharing	0.132 ± 0.0026 ms	0.132 ± 0.0027 ms	1
utils/index_constant_nodes/break_sharing	22.7 ± 0.94 μs	22.9 ± 0.83 μs	0.993
utils/index_constant_nodes/preserve_sharing	0.124 ± 0.0031 ms	0.125 ± 0.0029 ms	0.994
utils/is_constant/break_sharing	3.61 ± 0.071 μs	4.23 ± 0.079 μs	0.855
utils/simplify_tree/break_sharing	0.169 ± 0.0016 ms	0.171 ± 0.0015 ms	0.986
utils/simplify_tree/preserve_sharing	0.284 ± 0.0057 ms	0.334 ± 0.0061 ms	0.85
utils/string_tree/break_sharing	0.385 ± 0.015 ms	0.385 ± 0.014 ms	0.999
utils/string_tree/preserve_sharing	0.531 ± 0.025 ms	0.525 ± 0.02 ms	1.01
time_to_load	0.244 ± 0.001 s	0.243 ± 0.0024 s	1

[MilesCranmer]

Nice!! Yeah this is exactly what I had in mind 😀

I think the remaining pieces needed are: (1) copying it over to the LoopVectorization and Bumper extensions, and (2) adding some more expression tests to probe different branches of code, as well as with turbo=true and bumper=true. Sorry it’s a bit tedious!! In the future I’d like to just have some macro that generates the LoopVectorization code in the extension.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9741447211

Details

• 24 of 24 (100.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.006%) to 95.52%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9738548135:	0.006%
Covered Lines:	2196
Relevant Lines:	2299

---

💛 - Coveralls

[MilesCranmer]

FYI once this gets merged I may change things so that there is a single

Base.@kwdef struct EvaluationOptions{T,B,E}
    turbo::Val{T} = Val(false)
    bumper::Val{B} = Val(false)
    early_exit::Val{E} = Val(true)
end

which gets passed around. It should let eval_tree_array avoid keyword arguments (since use of keywords can affect some autodiff tools), and also simplifies the code a lot, as the functions wouldn't need to write Val(turbo) every time, etc.

If you're up for trying it in this PR, feel free, but I didn't want to have to ask you to do too much though, as I already appreciate this PR a lot 🙂

[nmheim]

Hey! I took a quick stab at the EvaluationOptions you suggested. Currently they could be used like

expr(X; options=EvaluationOption(turbo=Val(true)))
# or like below (which I think introduces a type instability)
expr(X; options=EvaluationOption(turbo=true))

this breaks backwards compatibility, so I guess it would be nice to make things work with the current kwarg way of calling the expression?

also, we might also want to add throws_error to the eval options?

Happy to update this however you think is best!

[MilesCranmer]

Also FYI I made a few changes that were easier to implement manually like (1) merging master and (2) changing options to eval_options (and the type to EvalOptions)

Re: throw_errors, I think we should leave it as-is in the method for generic evaluation.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 10127877451

Details

• 102 of 108 (94.44%) changed or added relevant lines in 4 files are covered.
• 4 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.1%) to 96.006%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/precompile.jl	0	6	0.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
src/Evaluate.jl	4	97.73%

Totals
Change from base Build 10126963755:	0.1%
Covered Lines:	2428
Relevant Lines:	2529

---

💛 - Coveralls

[MilesCranmer]

Thanks again for the great contribution!!