| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Switch format for tracing reagents in preparation for trees rather than
arrays of properties.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Current plan:
parsing {x: foo, y: bar} syntax for reagents
parsing s-expr syntax for properties
supporting reverse instructions (<-)
parsing s-expr syntax for recipe headers (recipe number number -> number)
static dispatch
generic functions
type-checking higher-order functions
type of delimited continuations? need more type information
First step is done, and the second partially so.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
At the lowest level I'm reluctantly starting to see the need for errors
that stop the program in its tracks. Only way to avoid memory corruption
and security issues. But beyond that core I still want to be as lenient
as possible at higher levels of abstraction.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Finally terminate the experiment of keeping debug prints around. I'm
also going to give up on maintaining counts.
What we really need is two kinds of tracing:
a) For tests, just the domain-specific facts, organized by labels.
b) For debugging, just transient dumps to stdout.
b) only works if stdout is clean by default.
Hmm, I think this means 'stash' should be the transient kind of trace.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
More verbose, but it saves trouble when debugging; there's never
something you thought should be traced but just never came out the other
end.
Also got rid of fatal errors entirely. Everything's a warning now, and
code after a warning isn't guaranteed to run.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It comes up pretty early in the codebase, but hopefully won't come up
in the mu level until we get to higher-order recipes. Potentially
intimidating name, but such prime real estate with no confusing
overloadings in other projects!
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Some tests weren't actually running for the past 5 days.
Performed 5 why's.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our new heuristic is: all string literals are the same. If they contain
newline before non-whitespace, we scan for comments assuming there might
be code inside:
foofoofoo [
... # ']' inside comment ignored
]
If they contain non-whitespace first, then we ignore comments assuming
it's just a regular string:
foofoofoo [abc#def] # valid string literal
The big hole in this approach:
foofoofoo [ # what about comments here containing ']'?
... # abc
]
Currently this reads as a 'code comment' and terminates before the
newline or '?' and will probably trigger errors down the line.
Temporary workaround: don't start code strings with a comment on the
same line as the '['. Eventually we'll tighten up the logic.
We're still not using the new heuristic in scenarios, but that's up
next.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
More concise traces for literal strings.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Useful check:
$ grep "[^ '\"]\[[^\"]" *.cc \
|perl -pwe 's/\Wargv\[|\WTests\[|\Wframe\[|\WMemory\[|\WName\[|\WSurrounding_space\[|\WRecipe\[|\WType\[|\WRecipe_number\[|\WType_number\[|\WBefore_fragments\[|\WAfter_fragments\[//g' \
|perl -pwe 's/\Wargv\[|\WTests\[|\Wframe\[|\WMemory\[|\WName\[|\WSurrounding_space\[|\WRecipe\[|\WType\[|\WRecipe_number\[|\WType_number\[|\WBefore_fragments\[|\WAfter_fragments\[//g' \
|grep '[^ ]\['
|
|
|
I've tried to update the Readme, but there are at least a couple of issues.
|