| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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).
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
As we perform type-checking earlier we'll delete these checks. But start
with type-checking at run-time.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Making life too complex at this time.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Bah, sick of CALL and continuations.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There were several places where we push a call on to a routine without
incrementing call-stack depth, which was used to compute the depth at
which to trace an instruction. So sometimes you ended up one depth lower
than you started a call with. Do this enough times and instructions that
should be traced at level 100 end up at level 0 and pop up as errors.
Solution: since call-stack depth is only used for tracing, include it in
the trace stream and make sure we reset it along with the trace stream.
Then catch all places where we forget to increment call-stack depth and
make sure we catch such places in the future.
When I first ran into this with Caleb I thought there must be some way
that we're writing some output into the warnings result. I didn't
recognize that the spurious output as part of the trace, just at the
wrong level.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This came last because we had to ensure all primitives are covered.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Always show recipe name where error occurred. But don't show internal
'interactive' name for sandboxes, that's just confusing.
What started out as warnings are now ossifying into errors that halt all
execution. Is this how things went with C and Unix as well?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Britt Crawford.
|
| |
|
|
| |
First step to reducing typing burden. Next step: inferring types.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Also standardized warnings.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Some reorg before we start plumbing 'reply' from 'run-interactive' to
return a string containing the results.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We will need many other forms of isolation for these. For starters we're
going to have to replace most asserts with warnings that can be traced
so that the environment doesn't crash because of illegal code typed into
it.
New test is still failing. Just getting it to fail right was hard
enough.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
|