| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I've been saying for a while[1][2][3] that adding extra abstractions makes
things harder for newcomers, and adding new notations doubly so. And then
I notice this DSL in my own backyard. Makes me feel like a hypocrite.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565743#13570092
[2] https://lobste.rs/s/to8wpr/configuration_files_are_canary_warning
[3] https://lobste.rs/s/mdmcdi/little_languages_by_jon_bentley_1986#c_3miuf2
The implementation of the DSL was also highly hacky:
a) It was happening in the tangle/ tool, but was utterly unrelated to tangling
layers.
b) There were several persnickety constraints on the different kinds of
lines and the specific order they were expected in. I kept finding bugs
where the translator would silently do the wrong thing. Or the error messages
sucked, and readers may be stuck looking at the generated code to figure
out what happened. Fixing error messages would require a lot more code,
which is one of my arguments against DSLs in the first place: they may
be easy to implement, but they're hard to design to go with the grain of
the underlying platform. They require lots of iteration. Is that effort
worth prioritizing in this project?
On the other hand, the DSL did make at least some readers' life easier,
the ones who weren't immediately put off by having to learn a strange syntax.
There were fewer quotes to parse, fewer backslash escapes.
Anyway, since there are also people who dislike having to put up with strange
syntaxes, we'll call that consideration a wash and tear this DSL out.
---
This commit was sheer drudgery. Hopefully it won't need to be redone with
a new DSL because I grow sick of backslashes.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This has taken me almost 6 weeks :(
|
| |
|
|
| |
Standardize use of type ingredients some more.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Undo the relayout of 4259.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I've been working on this slowly over several weeks, but it's too hard
to support 0 as the null value for addresses. I constantly have to add
exceptions for scalar value corresponding to an address type (now
occupying 2 locations). The final straw is the test for 'reload':
x:num <- reload text
'reload' returns an address. But there's no way to know that for
arbitrary instructions.
New plan: let's put this off for a bit and first create support for
literals. Then use 'null' instead of '0' for addresses everywhere. Then
it'll be easy to just change what 'null' means.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Use the real original instruction in error messages.
Thanks Ella Couch.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Lakshman Swaminathan for the request.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
One more place we were missing expanding type abbreviations: inside
container definitions.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Ella Couch; this was long overdue.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Standardize quotes around reagents in error messages.
I'm still sure there's issues. For example, the messages when
type-checking 'copy'. I'm not putting quotes around them because in
layer 60 I end up creating dilated reagents, and then it's a bit much to
have quotes and (two kinds of) brackets. But I'm sure I'm doing that
somewhere..
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Show more thorough information about instructions in the trace, but keep
the original form in error messages.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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/\(Recipe\|Type\)\[\([^]]*\)us cushion
continue; // not done with caller; don't increment current_step_index()
}
//:: finally, we need to fix the termination conditions for the run loop
:(replace{} "inline bool routine::completed() const")
inline bool routine::completed() const {
return calls.empty();
}
inline const vector<instruction>& routine::steps() const {
assert(!calls.empty());
return Recipe[calls.front().running_recipe].steps;
}
:(before "Running One Instruction")
// when we reach the end of one call, we may reach the end of the one below
// it, and the one below that, and so on
while (current_step_index() >= SIZE(Current_routine->steps())) {
// Falling Through End Of Recipe
--Callstack_depth;
//? cerr << "reply " << SIZE(Current_routine->calls) << '\n'; //? 2
Current_routine->calls.pop_front();
if (Current_routine->calls.empty()) return;
// Complete Call Fallthrough
// todo: no products returned warning
++current_step_index();
}
:(before "End Includes")
#include <stack>
using std::stack;
='2015-09-30 01:57:23 -0700'>2015-09-30 | 1 | -1/+2 |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|