about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/021check_instruction.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 3120Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-211-1/+1
| | | | | | | | Always show instruction before any transforms in error messages. This is likely going to make some errors unclear because they *need* to show the original instruction. But if we don't have tests for those situations did they ever really work?
* 3097Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-031-2/+2
|
* 2991Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-201-4/+4
| | | | | Never mind, always quote direct quotes from code in error messages. Dilated reagents are the uncommon case.
* 2931 - be explicit about making copiesKartik K. Agaram2016-05-061-7/+12
|
* 2929 - fix a bug in static dispatchKartik K. Agaram2016-05-051-9/+0
| | | | | | Thanks Caleb for finding this. We'd been using sandboxes for so long, I hadn't tried a null/0 screen/console in a while and somewhere down the road Mu stopped matching 0 against concrete addresses.
* 2836 - arcane bug in generic functionsKartik K. Agaram2016-04-151-0/+13
| | | | Thanks Caleb Couch for finding and reporting this.
* 2803Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-211-2/+1
| | | | | Show more thorough information about instructions in the trace, but keep the original form in error messages.
* 2773 - switch to 'int'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-131-2/+2
| | | | This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
* 2735 - define recipes using 'def'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-081-7/+7
| | | | | | | | | | | | I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very slowly decide on the right terminology with my students. I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient? It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on github and for people learning programming using Mu.
* 2712Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-261-2/+2
|
* 2711 - permit boolean<-number conversionsKartik K. Agaram2016-02-251-0/+9
| | | | | | | | | | | I might change my mind on this, but it's worth a try after watching Ella run up against it today. I got her to build the recipe 'odd?', but then it failed to run because she couldn't convert a numeric remainder to a number without a conditional (which I haven't taught her yet). For now I don't change the value in the boolean, so booleans can store arbitrary bit patterns like in C. We just say that 0 is false and anything else is true. I *think* that doesn't break the type system..
* 2709Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-251-2/+0
| | | | | Only Hide_errors when strictly necessary. In other places let test failures directly show the unexpected error.
* 2681 - drop reagent types from reagent propertiesKartik K. Agaram2016-02-211-3/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | All my attempts at staging this change failed with this humongous commit that took all day and involved debugging three monstrous bugs. Two of the bugs had to do with forgetting to check the type name in the implementation of shape-shifting recipes. Bug #2 in particular would cause core tests in layer 59 to fail -- only when I loaded up edit/! It got me to just hack directly on mu.cc until I figured out the cause (snapshot saved in mu.cc.modified). The problem turned out to be that I accidentally saved a type ingredient in the Type table during specialization. Now I know that that can be very bad. I've checked the traces for any stray type numbers (rather than names). I also found what might be a bug from last November (labeled TODO), but we'll verify after this commit.
* 2678Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-201-3/+3
| | | | | | | Start using type names from the type tree rather than the property tree in most places. Hopefully the only occurrences of 'properties.at(0).second' left are ones where we're managing it. Next we can stop writing to it.
* 2685Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-191-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Stack of plans for cleaning up replace_type_ingredients() and a couple of other things, from main problem to subproblems: include type names in the type_tree rather than in the separate properties vector make type_tree and string_tree real cons cells, with separate leaf nodes redo the vocabulary for dumping various objects: do we really need to_string and debug_string? can we have a version with *all* information? can we have to_string not call debug_string? This commit nibbles at the edges of the final task, switching from member method syntax to global function like almost everything else. I'm mostly using methods just for STL in this project.
* 2646 - redo static dispatch algorithmKartik K. Agaram2016-02-111-0/+9
| | | | | | | | The old approach of ad hoc boosts and penalties based on various features was repeatedly running into exceptions and bugs. New organization: multiple tiered scores interleaved with tie-breaks. The moment one tier yields one or more candidates, we stop scanning further tiers. Just break ties and return.
* 2620Kartik K. Agaram2016-01-301-27/+27
| | | | | I was finding it hard to wrap around the directionality of calls with 'lhs' and 'rhs'. Seems to work better with 'to' and 'from'. Let's see.
* 2619 - actually allow coercing booleans to numbersKartik K. Agaram2016-01-301-3/+19
| | | | | This uncovered a bug where I've been forgetting the directionality of arguments to types_coercible().
* 2578Kartik K. Agaram2016-01-201-4/+0
|
* 2549Kartik K. Agaram2015-12-281-1/+3
|
* 2607 - resolve some edge cases in static dispatchKartik K. Agaram2015-11-291-9/+16
|
* 2494Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-281-1/+1
| | | | | Some more structure to transforms, and flattening of dependencies between them.
* 2493 - eliminate a couple of dependenciesKartik K. Agaram2015-11-281-1/+1
| | | | | | | In general you only want to specify one transform in terms of (before/after) another if the other direction wouldn't work. Otherwise try to make it work by just pushing transforms at the start/end of the list.
* 2486Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-13/+11
| | | | | More cleanup. Haven't bothered to figure out why the trace for specialize_with_literal_4 is repeatedly perturbed.
* 2485Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-2/+0
|
* 2484Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-27/+18
| | | | | Eliminate one of several hacky type-check helpers; they've been proliferating lately.
* 2483 - to-text can now handle listsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-2/+2
| | | | | 'append' also implicitly calls 'to-text' unless there's a better variant.
* 2482 - better choice between valid variantsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-2/+6
| | | | Literal '0' ingredients should map to numbers before addresses.
* 2475 - allow addresses to be converted to numbersKartik K. Agaram2015-11-271-1/+18
| | | | It's just the other direction we want to avoid.
* 2473 - bad idea to use /raw with multiple intentionsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-221-3/+7
| | | | | /raw is to express absolute addresses /unsafe is to sidestep type-checking in test setup
* 2448Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-0/+2
|
* 2442Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-6/+5
| | | | | | Fix the drawback in the previous commit: if an ingredient is just a literal 0 we'll skip its type-checking and hope to map type ingredients elsewhere.
* 2441 - never miss any specializationsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-1/+10
| | | | | | | | | I was failing to specialize calls containing literals. And then I had to deal with whether literals should map to numbers or characters. (Answer: both.) One of the issues that still remains: shape-shifting recipes can't be called with literals for addresses, even if it's 0.
* 2433 - temporarily undo 2432Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-131-2/+0
| | | | | | Lessons with Caleb uncovered a problem with type ingredients: I can call shape-shifting recipes like 'push' from the commandline but not inside the edit/ or sandbox/ apps.
* 2432 - first stab at making ingredients immutableKartik K. Agaram2015-11-131-0/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The rule is, an address ingredient is only modifiable if: a) it's also a product b) it's /contained-in some other ingredient+product Only if an ingredient is a modifiable can you: a) call get-address or index-address on it (the only way to write to it) b) call other recipes that also return it in a product I still don't check copies of the address. That's next. Core mu passes this check, but none of the example apps do. edit/ and sandbox/ are known to fail.
* 2383 - new concern: idempotence of transformsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-061-1/+1
| | | | | I'd not paid any attention to it so far, but I need to do so from now on.
* 2382Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-061-0/+1
| | | | Starting to leave commented out prints again out of desperation.
* 2377 - stop using operator[] in mapKartik K. Agaram2015-11-061-12/+12
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I'm still seeing all sorts of failures in turning on layer 11 of edit/, so I'm backing away and nailing down every culprit I run into. First up: stop accidentally inserting empty objects into maps during lookups. Commands run: $ sed -i 's/\(Recipe_ordinal\|Recipe\|Type_ordinal\|Type\|Memory\)\[\([^]]*\)\] = \(.*\);/put(\1, \2, \3);/' 0[1-9]* $ vi 075scenario_console.cc # manually fix up Memory[Memory[CONSOLE]] $ sed -i 's/\(Memory\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get_or_insert(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]* $ sed -i 's/\(Recipe_ordinal\|Type_ordinal\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]* $ sed -i 's/\(Recipe\|Type\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]* Now mu dies pretty quickly because of all the places I try to lookup a missing value.
* 2358 - starting to tackle the phase ordering problemKartik K. Agaram2015-11-041-1/+1
| | | | | | | A new externality is starting to make its presence felt. Until I sort this out it's going to be hard to finish making duplex-list generic.
* 2337Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-011-0/+1
|
* 2321 - more preparations for static dispatchKartik K. Agaram2015-10-291-1/+1
| | | | | Deduce operation id from name during transform rather than load, so that earlier transforms have a chance to modify the name.
* 2306 - recipe headersKartik K. Agaram2015-10-281-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | Once a student has gotten used to recipes and ingredients using the staged 'next-ingredient' approach there's no reason to avoid conventional function headers. As an added bonus we can now: a) check that all 'reply' instructions in a recipe are consistent b) deduce what to reply without needing to say so everytime c) start thinking about type parameters for recipes (generic functions!)
* 2304Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-281-2/+2
| | | | | I no longer have any null types! That raises confidence that I'm on the right track.
* 2299 - check types of ingredients in callsKartik K. Agaram2015-10-281-0/+17
| | | | | | | | | | Still very incomplete: a) we perform the check at runtime b) tests for edit and sandbox apps no longer work; we can't fix them until we get type parameters in both containers and recipes (because list and list operations need to become generic).
* 2283 - represent each /property as a treeKartik K. Agaram2015-10-261-3/+3
|
* 2277 - reagents now have a tree of typesKartik K. Agaram2015-10-251-10/+18
|
* 2258 - separate warnings from errorsKartik K. Agaram2015-10-061-10/+10
| | | | | | | 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.
* 2245Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-051-4/+1
|
* 2231Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-011-0/+1
|
* 2229Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-011-0/+6
|