| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
It's just the other direction we want to avoid.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
If a name repeats between ingredients, we raise an error.
If a name repeats across ingredients and products, every call should
share the same name across the corresponding ingredients and products.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
One new issue: the traces for all tests are perturbed by the .mu files we
choose to load.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still some spurious warnings.
This was an insane experience building out generics. Time to reflect.
Where did I go wrong? How did I end up writing no tests? Let's take some
time and go over the last 50 commits with a fine-tooth comb.
Generics seems to be the feature that has moved mu from a VM project to
a compiler 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/\(Recipe\|Type\)\[\([^]]*\)\]/get(\1, \2)/' 0[1-9]*
Now mu dies pretty quickly because of all the places I try to lookup a
missing value.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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!)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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).
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We still can't check ingredient types, and even this is still a run-time
check. We'll need to start tracking recipe signatures at some point.
I've had to introduce a hack called /skiptypecheck. Time to get generics
working.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Turns out the default format for printing floating point numbers is
neither 'scientific' nor 'fixed' even though those are the only two
options offered. Reading the C++ standard I found out that the default
(modulo locale changes) is basically the same as the printf "%g" format.
And "%g" is basically the shorter of:
a) %f with trailing zeros trimmed
b) %e
So we'll just do %f and trim trailing zeros.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Standardize test names.
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Things I figured out:
- 'row' in render-screen doesn't perfectly track cursor-row in screen
- proximal cause was forgetting to add left:number to stop-printing
- trying to print to screen outside bounds was silently succeeding and
corrupting simulated memory
- if we silently ignore prints outside bounds things are fine
But why are prints outside screen bounds working? We should be accessing
screen data using 'index', and that's checking its bounds.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Debugging simulated-screen support is taking too long, and I suddenly
have a few higher priorities.
|
| |
|
|
| |
I'm writing to location 'screen' somehow that's not the raw location.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still ugly as hell. Some tests failing, but they're most likely
wrong. We need to test cursor positioning at the level of the
environment and take it away from the responsibilities of individual
editors. Also bring back the line at the bottom of each editor.
The non-test run ('main' in edit.mu) is completely borked. Sluggish as
hell, and I can't seem to switch focus to the sandbox editor.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
|