| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
https://lobste.rs/s/esqphf/what_are_you_working_on_this_week#c_ajgfim
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Stop hardcoding Max_depth everywhere; we had a default value for a
reason but then we forgot all about it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Finally, make the seemingly-trivial change to buffer methods that I was
envisioning 2 days ago.
I still have zero confidence in our heuristic for picking the generic
method to specialize for a call-site. Waiting for issues to reveal
themselves.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Some cleanup as I remind myself of how generic functions work in Mu.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Time to make my ad hoc commented out code fragments a first-class feature.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Use the real original instruction in error messages.
Thanks Ella Couch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
Our previous approach was breaking because a test was generating different
results depending on what layer you stopped at. Turns out we rename instructions
in layer 54. So let's save the original_name in the same layer.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
In the process I also fixed a bug in the tangle/ utility.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Expanded instructions don't seem to be worth the space they take up. Let
people think through the types of variables for themselves.
Thanks again to Ella Couch.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Ella Couch for suggesting this approach.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Bugfix: make sure 'print 0, 0' always does the right thing, no matter how
it's overloaded.
Thanks Ella Couch for reporting this.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Simpler way to do commit 2929.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Trying to find examples where a layer includes complexity just so later
layers can hook into it. Resolve_stack is the one big one I've found
that isn't just a simple function-call indirection that may later get
more complex.
Conclusion of a conversation with Stephen Malina: Such examples should
make one very nervous, because this sort of creep is how we end up with
over-engineered abstractions (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html).
We need to step very carefully anytime we make the outsider reader's
comprehension task harder..
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fix a place I forgot to update in commit 3309, moving to the new
type_tree representation.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Can't use type abbreviations inside 'memory-should-contain'.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It might be too much, particularly if students start peeking inside .mu
files early. But worth a shot for not just to iron out the kinks in the
abbreviation system.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Three separate CI fixes(!)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Expand type abbreviations when checking for colliding/redefined
variants.
This may need a separate transform if we ever find the need to use type
abbreviations before defining them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Rip out everything to fix one failing unit test (commit 3290; type
abbreviations).
This commit does several things at once that I couldn't come up with a
clean way to unpack:
A. It moves to a new representation for type trees without changing
the actual definition of the `type_tree` struct.
B. It adds unit tests for our type metadata precomputation, so that
errors there show up early and in a simpler setting rather than dying
when we try to load Mu code.
C. It fixes a bug, guarding against infinite loops when precomputing
metadata for recursive shape-shifting containers. To do this it uses a
dumb way of comparing type_trees, comparing their string
representations instead. That is likely incredibly inefficient.
Perhaps due to C, this commit has made Mu incredibly slow. Running all
tests for the core and the edit/ app now takes 6.5 minutes rather than
3.5 minutes.
== more notes and details
I've been struggling for the past week now to back out of a bad design
decision, a premature optimization from the early days: storing atoms
directly in the 'value' slot of a cons cell rather than creating a
special 'atom' cons cell and storing it on the 'left' slot. In other
words, if a cons cell looks like this:
o
/ | \
left val right
..then the type_tree (a b c) used to look like this (before this
commit):
o
| \
a o
| \
b o
| \
c null
..rather than like this 'classic' approach to s-expressions which never
mixes val and right (which is what we now have):
o
/ \
o o
| / \
a o o
| / \
b o null
|
c
The old approach made several operations more complicated, most recently
the act of replacing a (possibly atom/leaf) sub-tree with another. That
was the final straw that got me to realize the contortions I was going
through to save a few type_tree nodes (cons cells).
Switching to the new approach was hard partly because I've been using
the old approach for so long and type_tree manipulations had pervaded
everything. Another issue I ran into was the realization that my layers
were not cleanly separated. Key parts of early layers (precomputing type
metadata) existed purely for far later ones (shape-shifting types).
Layers I got repeatedly stuck at:
1. the transform for precomputing type sizes (layer 30)
2. type-checks on merge instructions (layer 31)
3. the transform for precomputing address offsets in types (layer 36)
4. replace operations in supporting shape-shifting recipes (layer 55)
After much thrashing I finally noticed that it wasn't the entirety of
these layers that was giving me trouble, but just the type metadata
precomputation, which had bugs that weren't manifesting until 30 layers
later. Or, worse, when loading .mu files before any tests had had a
chance to run. A common failure mode was running into types at run time
that I hadn't precomputed metadata for at transform time.
Digging into these bugs got me to realize that what I had before wasn't
really very good, but a half-assed heuristic approach that did a whole
lot of extra work precomputing metadata for utterly meaningless types
like `((address number) 3)` which just happened to be part of a larger
type like `(array (address number) 3)`.
So, I redid it all. I switched the representation of types (because the
old representation made unit tests difficult to retrofit) and added unit
tests to the metadata precomputation. I also made layer 30 only do the
minimal metadata precomputation it needs for the concepts introduced
until then. In the process, I also made the precomputation more correct
than before, and added hooks in the right place so that I could augment
the logic when I introduced shape-shifting containers.
== lessons learned
There's several levels of hygiene when it comes to layers:
1. Every layer introduces precisely what it needs and in the simplest
way possible. If I was building an app until just that layer, nothing
would seem over-engineered.
2. Some layers are fore-shadowing features in future layers. Sometimes
this is ok. For example, layer 10 foreshadows containers and arrays and
so on without actually supporting them. That is a net win because it
lets me lay out the core of Mu's data structures out in one place. But
if the fore-shadowing gets too complex things get nasty. Not least
because it can be hard to write unit tests for features before you
provide the plumbing to visualize and manipulate them.
3. A layer is introducing features that are tested only in later layers.
4. A layer is introducing features with tests that are invalidated in
later layers. (This I knew from early on to be an obviously horrendous
idea.)
Summary: avoid Level 2 (foreshadowing layers) as much as possible.
Tolerate it indefinitely for small things where the code stays simple
over time, but become strict again when things start to get more
complex.
Level 3 is mostly a net lose, but sometimes it can be expedient (a real
case of the usually grossly over-applied term "technical debt"), and
it's better than the conventional baseline of no layers and no
scenarios. Just clean it up as soon as possible.
Definitely avoid layer 4 at any time.
== minor lessons
Avoid unit tests for trivial things, write scenarios in context as much as
possible. But within those margins unit tests are fine. Just introduce them
before any scenarios (commit 3297).
Reorganizing layers can be easy. Just merge layers for starters! Punt on
resplitting them in some new way until you've gotten them to work. This is the
wisdom of Refactoring: small steps.
What made it hard was not wanting to merge *everything* between layer 30
and 55. The eventual insight was realizing I just need to move those two
full-strength transforms and nothing else.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Always show instruction before any transforms in error messages.
This is likely going to make some errors unclear because they *need* to
show the original instruction. But if we don't have tests for those
situations did they ever really work?
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Clean up 3020.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Bugfix: overriding a primitive recipe with a generic variant that takes
an address of something shouldn't mask the primitive when you call it
with literal 0.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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..
|
| |
|