;;;; The same source on both targets, which is the whole of decision 2.
;;;;
;;;; Flan has NO conditional compilation — nothing in parse.ml or check.ml
;;;; reads the target — so "isolate this to desktop" is not expressible here,
;;;; and a build-time refusal would therefore be unusable. A silent no-op is
;;;; worse than either, because that is how a save file disappears with nothing
;;;; said. So `barf` on the web signals a condition and the program decides,
;;;; which is the language having something Odin does not: Odin stubs its whole
;;;; file API on js/wasm to .Unsupported so that importing core:os "panics
;;;; cleanly", and a panic is not a decision.
;;;;
;;;; Built for the desktop this prints that the write worked. Built for the
;;;; browser it prints that it was refused, and says which file and why. One
;;;; source, two outcomes, no flag anywhere.

(defn main [] i32
  ;; Embedding needs no filesystem and no host ABI, so this line is identical
  ;; on both targets and is why decision 1 came first.
  (print (embed "assets/a.txt" string))

  (handler-bind
    [(FileError [c]
       (print "refused: ")
       (print (.path c))
       (print " reason ")
       (println (.reason c))
       (println (= (.reason c) file-unsupported))
       ;; There is no restart that means "give up and carry on" — spec-
       ;; conditions.md §2 makes `error` diverging, and a handler that returns
       ;; normally has not answered it. Leaving is the honest way out of a
       ;; save that cannot happen.
       (exit 0))]
    (barf "web-files-out.txt" (bytes "state\n")))
  (println "wrote it")
  0)