about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/072recipe.cc
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSLKartik Agaram2019-03-121-263/+360
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I've been saying for a while[1][2][3] that adding extra abstractions makes things harder for newcomers, and adding new notations doubly so. And then I notice this DSL in my own backyard. Makes me feel like a hypocrite. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565743#13570092 [2] https://lobste.rs/s/to8wpr/configuration_files_are_canary_warning [3] https://lobste.rs/s/mdmcdi/little_languages_by_jon_bentley_1986#c_3miuf2 The implementation of the DSL was also highly hacky: a) It was happening in the tangle/ tool, but was utterly unrelated to tangling layers. b) There were several persnickety constraints on the different kinds of lines and the specific order they were expected in. I kept finding bugs where the translator would silently do the wrong thing. Or the error messages sucked, and readers may be stuck looking at the generated code to figure out what happened. Fixing error messages would require a lot more code, which is one of my arguments against DSLs in the first place: they may be easy to implement, but they're hard to design to go with the grain of the underlying platform. They require lots of iteration. Is that effort worth prioritizing in this project? On the other hand, the DSL did make at least some readers' life easier, the ones who weren't immediately put off by having to learn a strange syntax. There were fewer quotes to parse, fewer backslash escapes. Anyway, since there are also people who dislike having to put up with strange syntaxes, we'll call that consideration a wash and tear this DSL out. --- This commit was sheer drudgery. Hopefully it won't need to be redone with a new DSL because I grow sick of backslashes.
* 4987 - support `browse_trace` tool in SubXKartik Agaram2019-02-251-6/+4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I've extracted it into a separate binary, independent of my Mu prototype. I also cleaned up my tracing layer to be a little nicer. Major improvements: - Realized that incremental tracing really ought to be the default. And to minimize printing traces to screen. - Finally figured out how to combine layers and call stack frames in a single dimension of depth. The answer: optimize for the experience of `browse_trace`. Instructions occupy a range of depths based on their call stack frame, and minor details of an instruction lie one level deeper in each case. Other than that, I spent some time adjusting levels everywhere to make `browse_trace` useful.
* 4262 - literal 'null'Kartik Agaram2018-06-171-1/+1
|
* 4260 - make address coercions explicitKartik Agaram2018-06-161-1/+1
| | | | | 'deaddress' is a terrible name. Hopefully I'll come up with something better.
* 4224 - fill an old hole in static dispatchKartik K. Agaram2018-03-141-3/+162
| | | | Resolve ambiguous calls when copying (overloaded) recipe literals to variables.
* 4223Kartik K. Agaram2018-03-141-4/+1
|
* 4214Kartik K. Agaram2018-02-211-1/+2
|
* 4179 - experiment: rip out memory reclamationKartik K. Agaram2018-01-031-3/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I have a plan for a way to avoid use-after-free errors without all the overheads of maintaining refcounts. Has the nice side-effect of requiring manual memory management. The Mu way is to leak memory by default and build tools to help decide when and where to expend effort plugging memory leaks. Arguably programs should be distributed with summaries of their resource use characteristics. Eliminating refcount maintenance reduces time to run tests by 30% for `mu edit`: this commit parent mu test: 3.9s 4.5s mu test edit: 2:38 3:48 Open questions: - making reclamation easier; some sort of support for destructors - reclaiming local scopes (which are allocated on the heap) - should we support automatically reclaiming allocations inside them?
* 4160 - named marks for delimited continuationsKartik K. Agaram2017-12-151-5/+3
| | | | | Hypothesis: this is needed to build McCarthy's amb operator. https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Amb
* 4151 - specializing calls returning continuationsKartik K. Agaram2017-12-071-2/+11
|
* 4145 - specializing recipe literals in `call`Kartik K. Agaram2017-12-071-24/+58
|
* 4144Kartik K. Agaram2017-12-071-23/+23
|
* 4137 - perform specialization on indirect callsKartik K. Agaram2017-12-041-0/+25
| | | | https://lobste.rs/s/esqphf/what_are_you_working_on_this_week#c_ajgfim
* 4106Kartik K. Agaram2017-11-031-1/+1
|
* 3991 - start work on making continuations safeKartik K. Agaram2017-09-101-0/+396
Plan: 1. Fix a hole where addresses are shared between routines when passed in as arguments to `start-running`. 2. Switch to a new approach to refcount management: instead of updating refcounts when writing products of instructions by default, increment refcounts inside instructions by default and decrement refcounts in caller. More details in future when I actually implement this. 3. Now we shouldn't need a distinction between `new-default-space` and `local-scope`, and all functions can simply decrement refcounts of their default-space, consistently handling any refcounts in the space. At this point if all goes well, continuations should be safe! This commit is just preparation for step 1.