| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The relative global variables go into the outer lexical scope.
Sharing local variables between functions yet again proven to be a bad
idea.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
But now that we've added the keyboard parameter to process-keys,
modifying it in a recursive call also clobbers it in the caller. All
because of my weird, non-standard use of shared scope.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Swap printing generalized objects using arc's infrastructure to be the
$-prefixed debug helper, while the erstwhile $print-key-to-host becomes
the primitive print-character to host.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Typo in a recent test.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
process-key is extracted to work on a given character, but its helpers
for parsing strings and comments still read keys directly from keyboard.
Still, this took long enough to get working that it's worth saving.
Milestones:
a) figuring out how to debug without dumping trace crap on the screen
in cursor mode.
b) realizing you can't assign directly to result in the up case. Have
to let the recursive call do it.
c) replacing continuations in 'process-key'.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Took me all day to realize this, that recursive calls to process-key
won't work as long as we call that next-key continuation.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
You can't just extract the array from inside a buffer. Its length isn't
right. Only reason we didn't catch this sooner is I think that arc's
simulated memory is initialized to all nils, which has some
serendipitous properties.
I should initialize memory to random values one of these days and see
what shakes out.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
's-expression' is too jargon-y.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Only non-obvious changes here are handling the early exits.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Jumps forward are harder than jumps back. You can't create a
continuation until you get to it. And we don't have a way to return
things from a continuation yet. That's a flaw. Maybe we need a
'reply-from' operator.
But for now, this small bit of code we can just inline and duplicate.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Works beautifully!
This is the first step to hoisting all the code for reading a key into
its own function. In other languages extracting arbitrary code into a
function requires passing all arguments into it, which is annoying and
hard to read. In mu you can just pass your default-space to it to share
all local variables. But there's been one additional complication until
now: labels, which are namespaced by function. Now we can replace
labels with continuations and extract arbitrary code into new functions.
Might be confusing to lose a few stack frames. Might end up undoing
values of some important local. We'll see if we run into that.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We'll make 'buffer' properly generic at some point. Basically need to
support multi-word types.
x:list:integer <- copy y:list:integer # ok
x:list <- copy y:list:integer # ok
x:list:integer <- copy y:list # error
We'll need a separate runtime operator like maybe-coerce for the third
case.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Style lesson: always save args the moment you enter the function.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the right time for this change I've been meaning to make,
because it lets me drop my hack in 'abort-to'.
'abort-to' is likely still a bad idea because:
a) Just because this example doesn't need to clear a few things on
abort doesn't mean such use cases don't exist. In other words, there's
no way to tell if your stack frame recently returned from an abort.
That question isn't even well-posed at the moment; what does
'recently' even mean?
b) I may need to run deferred statements on each stack frame, and it's
not clear how to rewrite 'defer' to be robust to aborts. Exceptions
entering through the back door?
Looks like all this is expected when implementing exception-like
behavior using continuations:
http://matt.might.net/articles/implementing-exceptions
c) Of course we don't have composable exceptions. I still don't grok
the value of that. We don't need yield since we have channels. What
else might we need continuations for? Let's try to come up with a
clean way to implement the amb operator or something.
http://www.randomhacks.net/2005/10/11/amb-operator
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Poor man's continuation. Not first class or delimited yet. And we see
the problem: hard to specify precisely what to do after unwinding the
stack. We start reaching for a try/catch statement. But let's see if
there's a better way.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Yet another 'grow-buffer' bug.
|
| |
|
|
| |
'grow-buffer' was never working until now. Too much spiking lately.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
(flush-output) does the trick as suggested in
https://github.com/hopkinsr/terminal-color/issues/1
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Stop misusing the 'result' convention.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Make use of the escape list to break out of strings and comments.
Also fixes a bug in backspacing past start of comment: was prematurely
terminating the current command.
|