| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | 2570 - recipe variables are now fully type-checked | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-18 | 1 | -0/+31 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2569 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-18 | 1 | -0/+14 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2566 - typecheck 'call' on recipe variables | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-18 | 1 | -1/+25 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2565 - typecheck 'call' on literal recipes | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-18 | 1 | -0/+48 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2563 - bring back 'call' | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-18 | 1 | -0/+54 |
| | | | | | Still need to type-check it, though. | ||||
| * | 2562 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-17 | 1 | -11/+12 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | We want to use the type 'recipe' for recipe *variables*, because it seems nicer to say `recipe number -> number` rather than recipe-ordinal, etc. To support this we'll allow recipe names to be mentioned without any type. This might make a couple of places in this commit more brittle. I'm dropping error messages, causing them to not happen in some situations. Maybe I should just bite the bullet and require an explicit :recipe-literal. We'll see. | ||||
| * | 2561 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-17 | 1 | -0/+25 |
| Reorganize layers in preparation for a better, more type-safe implementation of first-class and higher-order recipes. | |||||