mu - Soul of a tiny new machine. More thorough tests → More comprehensible and rewrite-friendly software → More resilient society.

	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Age	Files	Lines
*	2214	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-09-28	1	-123/+0
\|
*	1962	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-08-09	1	-4/+4
\| \| \| \|	Standardize test names.
*	1953 - more warnings	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-08-07	1	-3/+12
\|
*	1868 - start using naked literals everywhere	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-07-28	1	-12/+12
\| \| \| \|	First step to reducing typing burden. Next step: inferring types.
*	1848 - core instructions now check for ingredients	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-07-25	1	-1/+1
\| \| \| \|	Also standardized warnings.
*	1702 - experiment: start using 'ordinal' in names	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-07-04	1	-3/+3
\| \| \| \| \| \| \|	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!
*	1414 - traces now robust to new recipes/types	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-21	1	-16/+0
\|
*	1391 - avoid unsigned integers	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-17	1	-6/+6
\|
*	1366	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-14	1	-3/+3
\|
*	1357 - temporarily revert floating-point support	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-12	1	-3/+3
\|
*	1356 - snapshot #2: floating point support	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-12	1	-3/+3
\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	I added one test to check that divide can return a float, then hacked at the rippling failures across the entire entire codebase until all tests pass. Now I need to look at the changes I made and see if there's a system to them, identify other places that I missed, and figure out the best way to cover all cases. I also need to show real rather than encoded values in the traces, but I can't use value() inside reagent methods because of the name clash with the member variable. So let's take a snapshot before we attempt any refactoring. This was non-trivial to get right. Even if I convince myself that I've gotten it right, I might back this all out if I can't easily persuade others that I've gotten it right.
*	1298 - better ingredient/product handling	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-07	1	-38/+74
\| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \| \|	All primitives now always write to all their products. If a product is not used that's fine, but if an instruction seems to expect too many products mu will complain. In the process, many primitives can operate on more than two ingredients where it seems intuitive. You can add or divide more than two numbers together, copy or negate multiple corresponding locations, etc. There's one remaining bit of ugliness. Some instructions like get/get-address, index/index-address, wait-for-location, these can unnecessarily load values from memory when they don't need to. Useful vim commands: %s/ingredients\[$[^\]]$\]/ingredients.at(\1)/gc %s/products\[$[^\]]$\]/products.at(\1)/gc .,$s/\[$.$]/.at(\1)/gc
*	1276 - make C++ version the default	Kartik K. Agaram	2015-05-05	1	-0/+94
	I've tried to update the Readme, but there are at least a couple of issues.

Variant of [the mu programming environment](../edit) that runs just the sandbox. Suitable for people who want to run their favorite terminal-based editor with mu. Just run editor and sandbox inside split panes atop tmux. For example, here's mu running alongside vim: <img alt='tmux+vim example' src='../html/tmux-vim-sandbox.png'> To set this up: a) copy the lines in tmux.conf into `$HOME/.tmux.conf`. b) copy the file `mu_run` somewhere in your `$PATH`. Now when you start tmux, split it into two vertical panes, run `mu sandbox` on the right pane and your editor on the left. You should be able to hit F4 in either side to run the sandbox. Known issues: you have to explicitly save inside your editor before hitting F4, unlike with 'mu edit'.