about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/044space_surround.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSLKartik Agaram2019-03-121-34/+43
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 4266 - space for alloc-id in heap allocationsKartik Agaram2018-06-241-17/+27
| | | | This has taken me almost 6 weeks :(
* 4258 - undo 4257Kartik Agaram2018-06-151-17/+14
|
* 4257 - abortive attempt at safe fat pointersKartik Agaram2018-06-151-14/+17
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 4179 - experiment: rip out memory reclamationKartik K. Agaram2018-01-031-15/+10
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I have a plan for a way to avoid use-after-free errors without all the overheads of maintaining refcounts. Has the nice side-effect of requiring manual memory management. The Mu way is to leak memory by default and build tools to help decide when and where to expend effort plugging memory leaks. Arguably programs should be distributed with summaries of their resource use characteristics. Eliminating refcount maintenance reduces time to run tests by 30% for `mu edit`: this commit parent mu test: 3.9s 4.5s mu test edit: 2:38 3:48 Open questions: - making reclamation easier; some sort of support for destructors - reclaiming local scopes (which are allocated on the heap) - should we support automatically reclaiming allocations inside them?
* 4178Kartik K. Agaram2017-12-311-2/+1
|
* 3999Kartik K. Agaram2017-09-151-2/+2
|
* 3707Kartik K. Agaram2016-12-121-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Be more disciplined about tagging 2 different concepts in the codebase: a) Use the phrase "later layers" to highlight places where a layer doesn't have the simplest possible self-contained implementation. b) Use the word "hook" to point out functions that exist purely to provide waypoints for extension by future layers. Since both these only make sense in the pre-tangled representation of the codebase, using '//:' and '#:' comments to get them stripped out of tangled output. (Though '#:' comments still make it to tangled output at the moment. Let's see if we use it enough to be worth supporting. Scenarios are pretty unreadable in tangled output anyway.)
* 3522Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-191-1/+1
|
* 3394Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-2/+2
|
* 3393Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-2/+2
|
* 3390Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-4/+4
|
* 3389Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-2/+2
|
* 3380Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-7/+7
| | | | | One more place we were missing expanding type abbreviations: inside container definitions.
* 3239Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-211-3/+3
|
* 3214Kartik K. Agaram2016-08-171-0/+3
|
* 2990Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-201-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | 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..
* 2864 - replace all address:shared with just addressKartik K. Agaram2016-04-241-4/+4
| | | | | | | Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always track refcounts for all addresses. Phew!
* 2773 - switch to 'int'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-131-7/+7
| | | | This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
* 2735 - define recipes using 'def'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-081-3/+3
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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. Agaram2016-02-261-1/+1
|
* 2707Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-251-4/+1
|
* 2681 - drop reagent types from reagent propertiesKartik K. Agaram2016-02-211-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2581 - make space for the refcount in address:sharedKartik K. Agaram2016-01-201-11/+19
| | | | | | | | | | | We don't yet actually maintain the refcount. That's next. Hardest part of this was debugging the assume-console scenarios in layer 85. That took some detailed manual diffing of traces (because the output of diff was no good). New tracing added in this commit add 8% to .traces LoC. Commented out trace() calls (used during debugging) make that 45%.
* 2576 - distinguish allocated addresses from othersKartik K. Agaram2016-01-191-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to perform ref-counting at runtime. So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual ref-counting implementation is next. One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses; the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe should be few and far between.
* 2571Kartik K. Agaram2016-01-191-0/+57
| | | | | Reorganize layers in preparation for a better way to manage heap allocations without ever risking use-after-free errors.
* 1768Kartik K. Agaram2015-07-131-60/+0
|
* 1434 - support all unicode spacesKartik K. Agaram2015-05-231-1/+9
|
* 1414 - traces now robust to new recipes/typesKartik K. Agaram2015-05-211-3/+3
|
* 1391 - avoid unsigned integersKartik K. Agaram2015-05-171-7/+7
|
* 1387Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-161-1/+1
|
* 1364 - trace call-stack when switching routinesKartik K. Agaram2015-05-131-1/+1
| | | | Drop the #$%# 'encapsulated' stack ADT.
* 1363 - rename 'integer' to 'number'Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-131-4/+4
| | | | ..now that we support non-integers.
* 1357 - temporarily revert floating-point supportKartik K. Agaram2015-05-121-2/+2
|
* 1356 - snapshot #2: floating point supportKartik K. Agaram2015-05-121-2/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 1343Kartik K. Agaram2015-05-111-1/+1
|
* 1298 - better ingredient/product handlingKartik K. Agaram2015-05-071-2/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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 defaultKartik K. Agaram2015-05-051-0/+50
I've tried to update the Readme, but there are at least a couple of issues.