about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/052tangle.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 2149Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-2/+2
|
* 2138 - warn on jump to an ambiguous labelKartik K. Agaram2015-09-041-41/+172
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This seemingly simple goal uncovered a little nest of bugs: it turns out I've been awash in ambiguous labels until now. My baseline recipes in edit.mu were clean, but they introduced duplicate <waypoints> -- and *those* waypoints contained +jump-targets. Result: duplicate jump targets, so that I wasn't jumping where I thought I was jumping. Somehow I happened to be picking one of the alternatives that magically kept these issues quiescent. My first plan to fix this was to mangle names of all labels inside before/after fragments, keep the jump targets private to their fragment. But the labels also include more waypoints! Mangle those, and I can't tangle to them anymore. Solution: harden the convention that jump targets begin with '+' and waypoints are surrounded by '<>'. Mangle jump targets occurring inside before/after fragments to keep them private to their lexical fragment, but *don't* mangle waypoints, which must remain globally accessible.
* 2095Kartik K. Agaram2015-08-281-4/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 1945Kartik K. Agaram2015-08-061-19/+68
| | | | | | Turns out it is indeed useful to insert code at multiple duplicate labels within a single (long) recipe. Like handle-keyboard-event in edit.mu.
* 1939 - allow nested tanglingKartik K. Agaram2015-08-051-30/+49
| | | | However, you can't have duplicate labels within a single recipe.
* 1938 - warn on unused before/after fragmentsKartik K. Agaram2015-08-051-0/+27
|
* 1870Kartik K. Agaram2015-07-281-0/+198