| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Can't use type abbreviations inside 'memory-should-contain'.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The solution for avoiding deadlock is for routines to close channels
before they exit. So that's good.
Once I implemented 'close', I also found and fixed 2 unrelated bugs in
chessboard.mu:
a) one long-missed and long-masked case of forgetting to store
character literals in character variables
b) one typo in translating get-address to put
So that's good.
What's not so good: in the process of fixing this I've found three
unrelated bugs (marked 'BUG:' in the changes). All three have
workarounds, so existing tests pass for now. But they are my top
priority next.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
Phew!
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Only apps left now, and the wait-for-location uses in the channel
primitives.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This way when you pass one end to a function or routine, you can
implicitly give it the right to either read or write the channel, but
not both.
The cost: code gets more convoluted, names get more convoluted. You can
see this in particular in the test for buffer-lines. Let's see how it
goes..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I've ignored Mu's concurrency primitives for a while, but they're
starting to return to front-and-center as I work on the file system
interfaces.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|