| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Still need to type-check it, though.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Reorganize layers in preparation for a better, more type-safe
implementation of first-class and higher-order recipes.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I still need it in some situations because I have no way to set a
non-zero default for an optional ingredient. Open question..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Eventually you'll need to create a doubly-linked list, and `isolated`
won't save you then.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still can't print non-integer numbers, so this is a bit hacky.
The big consequence is that you can't print literal characters anymore
because of our rules about how we pick which variant to statically
dispatch to. You have to save to a character variable first.
Maybe I can add an annotation to literals..
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch.
|
| |
|
|
| |
update html
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- 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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
First some baseline tests that should never trigger warnings.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I wasn't seeing errors because I wasn't using /contained-in in products
yet. But it seems to work fine even after.
One reason this isn't an invasive change is that it's opt-in. Most of
the time it isn't triggered. You have to add the /contained-in check to
trigger a check. But that's just like regular const checks in other
languages: if you don't specify immutability you get no checks.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If a product is contained-in some ingredient, then the caller will check
the product for mutations as well. For example, consider this
linked-list operation:
b:address:list:number <- next a:address:list:number
If 'a' is immutable in the surrounding recipe, you probably want 'b' to
be immutable as well. You can achieve this by giving 'next' the
following header (ignoring shape-shifting):
recipe next a:address:list:number -> b:address:list:number/contained-in:a
This is the theory, anyway. Rather to my surprise, this doesn't trigger
any issues with existing code. That's probably too good to be true.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
No more bugs; phew.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Now I complain before running if a call somewhere doesn't line up with
its ingredients, or if no specialization can be made to match it.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This isn't complete yet:
a) If you copy a variable the copy is not checked for mutations.
b) /contained-in might be a hack. It's needed because sometimes I want
to pass in two pointers to a data structure, say for deleting something
from a list. Both are conceptually the same structure, so it's
unnecessary for both to be products as well. There's also technical
reasons you *can't* return both, because if you pass in the same
variable to both ingredients (say you want to remove the first element
of a list), the products now must write to the same variable as well
(thanks to our earlier /same-as-ingredient constraint), and what value
gets written last is not something we want to be thinking about.
c) Even if we stick with /contained-in, it's ambiguous. I'm using it
sometimes to say "a belongs to b", sometimes to say "a _will_ belong to
b after the recipe returns. Perhaps that distinction doesn't matter.
We'll see.
d) Should we be encouraged to say ingredients are contained in products?
At the moment 'push' works only because of mu's incomplete analysis.
Once we fix a) above, it's unclear what the right header should be.
e) edit/ isn't close to working yet.
(No more commit numbers since I'm now starting a branch, and can't rely
on a stable ordering as I rebase. For the same reason I'm not including
the changes to .traces/, to minimize merge conflicts.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|