about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/061text.mu
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 3699Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-281-1/+1
| | | | | Delete some obsolete /same-as-ingredient attributes. We should always let Mu deduce those at this point.
* 3688Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-251-0/+1
| | | | | | | Move my todos over the past couple of years into the codebase now that it might be going dormant. Surprising how few todos left undone!
* 3683Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-231-0/+26
|
* 3674Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-131-1/+1
|
* 3672Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-131-3/+3
|
* 3670 - parsing whole numbers from textKartik K. Agaram2016-11-111-0/+83
| | | | Thanks Ella Couch for contributing this function.
* 3552Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-221-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Stop requiring jump instructions to explicitly provide a ':label' type for jump targets. This has been a source of repeated confusion for my students: a) They'd add the ':label' to the label definition rather than the jump target (label use) b) They'd spend time thinking about whether the initial '+' prefix was part of the label name. In the process I cleaned up a couple of things: - the space of names is more cleanly partitioned into labels and non-labels (clarifying that '_' and '-' are non-label prefixes) - you can't use label names as regular variables anymore - you can infer the type of a label just from its name
* 3429 - standardize Mu scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-09-281-158/+182
| | | | | | | | | | | | | A long-standing problem has been that I couldn't spread code across 'run' blocks because they were separate scopes, so I've ended up making them effectively comments. Running code inside a 'run' block is identical in every way to simply running the code directly. The 'run' block is merely a visual aid to separate setup from the component under test. In the process I've also standardized all Mu scenarios to always run in a local scope, and only use (raw) numeric addresses for values they want to check later.
* 3390Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-41/+41
|
* 3389Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-17/+17
|
* 3386Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-56/+56
|
* 3385Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-72/+72
|
* 3379Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-67/+67
| | | | Can't use type abbreviations inside 'memory-should-contain'.
* 3368Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-151-13/+0
| | | | Decouple layer 61 test from layer 62 dependency.
* 3365 - create strings out of arbitrary typesKartik K. Agaram2016-09-151-1/+28
| | | | | The implementation is quite hacky. Let's see how future needs develop before we try to clean it up.
* 3357 - multi-ary 'append'Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-151-33/+36
|
* 3356Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-151-10/+10
|
* 3344Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-1/+0
|
* 3343Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-15/+0
| | | | | Reorganize layers a bit so I can add a couple of scenarios testing static dispatch *before* I add `stash` into the mix.
* 3341Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-13/+13
| | | | | | | Process type abbreviations in function headers. Still a couple of places where doing this causes strange errors. We'll track those down next.
* 3338Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-1/+1
| | | | Process type abbreviations in container definitions.
* 3337 - first use of type abbreviations: textKartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-123/+123
| | | | | In the process I've uncover a couple of situations we don't support type abbreviations yet. They're next.
* 3324 - completely redo type abbreviationsKartik K. Agaram2016-09-111-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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..
* 3186 - handle 'new-buffer' without ingredientsKartik K. Agaram2016-08-141-0/+14
|
* 3155Kartik K. Agaram2016-07-271-2/+2
|
* 3055Kartik K. Agaram2016-06-131-0/+1269