| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That
way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very
slowly decide on the right terminology with my students.
I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses
it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient?
It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I
do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on
github and for people learning programming using Mu.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The old approach of ad hoc boosts and penalties based on various
features was repeatedly running into exceptions and bugs. New
organization: multiple tiered scores interleaved with tie-breaks. The
moment one tier yields one or more candidates, we stop scanning further
tiers. Just break ties and return.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch for finding this. These tests were breaking only when
some other code somewhere has already triggered the specialization of
'append' for numbers.
How to test this? Perhaps the right fix is to warn when character
variants are used with literals. Or only when there's also a generic
variant that could conceivably be specialized for numbers.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I realize that my current doesn't allow nesting a:b:c linear type syntax
inside a dilated property. So you can't currently say:
(recipe address:number)
Need to fix that at some point. Non-trivial since linear syntax is
oblivious to dilated syntax. I should probably make the dilated syntax
more fundamental and introduce it at an earlier layer.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I still need it in some situations because I have no way to set a
non-zero default for an optional ingredient. Open question..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The idea is that to-text-line should truncate blindly past some
threshold, even if to-text isn't smart enough to avoid infinite loops.
Maybe I should define a 'truncating buffer' which stops once it fills
up. That would be an easy way to eliminate all infinite loops in
to-text-line.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
'append' also implicitly calls 'to-text' unless there's a better
variant.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
2473 was the final bugfix holding this back.
|
|
|
Not entirely happy with this. Maybe we'll find a better name. But at
least it's an improvement.
One part I *am* happy with is renaming string-replace to replace,
string-append to append, etc. Overdue, now that we have static dispatch.
|