| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Standardize quotes around reagents in error messages.
I'm still sure there's issues. For example, the messages when
type-checking 'copy'. I'm not putting quotes around them because in
layer 60 I end up creating dilated reagents, and then it's a bit much to
have quotes and (two kinds of) brackets. But I'm sure I'm doing that
somewhere..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
More thorough redo of commit 2767 (Mar 12), which was undone in commit
2810 (Mar 24). It's been a long slog. Next step: write a bunch of mu
code in the edit/ app in search of bugs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
Phew!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This brings back some of the complexity I thought I'd gotten rid of in
2799.
The regression brought home the point that I'd forgotten to write tests
for those bits. Written now.
It also brought home the point that our cleanup in 'reload' has always
been hacky and incomplete.
It's also ugly that those tests in the sandbox/ and edit/ apps need
changing (particularly when the test is about how the output doesn't
change).
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Show more thorough information about instructions in the trace, but keep
the original form in error messages.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As outlined at the end of 2797. This worked out surprisingly well. Now
the snapshotting code touches fewer layers, and it's much better
behaved, with less need for special-case logic, particularly inside
run_interactive(). 30% slower, but should hopefully not cause any more
bugs.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It turns out that my extensible stash doesn't yet work well in all
situations. If you try to stash an array, you end up trying to create an
array local that's not statically sized -- a no-no.
Bah, just throw it all out.
|
| |
|
|
| |
This should eradicate the issue of 2771.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Stack of plans for cleaning up replace_type_ingredients() and a couple
of other things, from main problem to subproblems:
include type names in the type_tree rather than in the separate properties vector
make type_tree and string_tree real cons cells, with separate leaf nodes
redo the vocabulary for dumping various objects:
do we really need to_string and debug_string?
can we have a version with *all* information?
can we have to_string not call debug_string?
This commit nibbles at the edges of the final task, switching from
member method syntax to global function like almost everything else. I'm
mostly using methods just for STL in this project.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Ran into a crash here while loading Caleb's deck-of-war program. Not
bothering debugging it..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We want to use the type 'recipe' for recipe *variables*, because it
seems nicer to say `recipe number -> number` rather than recipe-ordinal,
etc. To support this we'll allow recipe names to be mentioned without
any type.
This might make a couple of places in this commit more brittle. I'm
dropping error messages, causing them to not happen in some situations.
Maybe I should just bite the bullet and require an explicit
:recipe-literal. We'll see.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- notes
bug in edit/ triggers in immutable but not master branch
bug triggered by changes to layer 059: we're finding an unspecialized call to 'length' in 'append_6'
hard to debug because trace isn't complete
just bring out the big hammer: use a new log file
length_2 from recipes.mu is not being deleted (bug #1)
so reload doesn't switch length to length_2 when variant_already_exists (bug #2)
so we end up saving in Recipe for a primitive ordinal
so no valid specialization is found for 'length' (bug #3)
why doesn't it trigger in a non-interactive scenario?
argh, wasn't checking for an empty line at end. ok, confidence restored.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
/raw is to express absolute addresses
/unsafe is to sidestep type-checking in test setup
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Requires carefully deleting specializations so that they can be
reintroduced each time.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is happening because of our recent generic changes, which trigger
some post-processing transforms on all recipes even if we processed them
before. We could clear 'interactive' inside 'reload' to avoid this, but
random 'run' blocks in scenarios can still pick up errors from sandboxes
earlier in a scenario. The right place to clear the 'interactive' recipe
is right after we use it, in run_code_end().
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
In debugging 2438, I spent a while going around in circles trying to
decide if there was a stray overload of 'interactive'. Part of the
problem was the hacky delete of a recipe just above. Stop doing that.
|
| |
|