| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reorganize layers a bit so I can add a couple of scenarios testing
static dispatch *before* I add `stash` into the mix.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Process type abbreviations in function headers.
Still a couple of places where doing this causes strange errors. We'll
track those down next.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Process type abbreviations in container definitions.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
In the process I've uncover a couple of situations we don't support type
abbreviations yet. They're next.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The old approach with '&' and '@' modifiers turned out to be a bad idea
because it introduces notions of precedence. Worse, it turns out you
want different precedence rules at different times as the old test
alluded:
x:@number:3 # we want this to mean (address number 3)
x:address:@number # we want this to mean (address array number)
Instead we'll give up and focus on a single extensible mechanism that
allows us to say this instead:
x:@:number:3
x:address:@:number
In addition it allows us to shorten other types as well:
x:&:@:num
type board = &:@:&:@:char # for tic-tac-toe
Hmm, that last example reminds me that we don't handle abbreviations
inside type abbreviation definitions so far..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|