| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
It was all going to laboriously writing out 300+ MB to disk.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Implement warnings for types without definitions without constraining
where type definitions must appear.
We also eliminate the anti-pattern where a change in layer 10 had its
test in layer 11 (commit 1383).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since '3.14159:literal' looks ugly, we'll just say '3.14159'. It's not
like non-integers can be confused for anything but literals.
Once I tried to turn reagent values into doubles, I uncovered a bug:
arithmetic using signed integers is busted; if either operand of
subtraction is unsigned the result is unsigned as well. If it needs to
be negative: ka-boom. It was only masked because I was eventually
storing the result in a long long int, where it was out of range, and so
overflowing into the correct signed value. Once I switched to doubles
the unsigned value would indeed fit without overflowing. Ka-boom.
Yet another reminder that unsigned integers suck. I started using them
mostly to avoid warnings in loops when comparing with .size(), which is
usually a size_t.
Who knows what other crap lurks here. Just use signed integers
everywhere. (And avoid bitwise operators.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This bit me in the last commit for the first time.
Layer 010vm.cc is starting to look weird. It has references to stuff
that gets implemented much later, like containers and exclusive
containers. Its helpers are getting an increasing amount of logic. And
it has no tests.
I'm still inclined to think it's useful to have major data structures in
one place, even if they aren't used for a bit. But those helpers should
perhaps move out somehow or get some tests in the same layer.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
After like 40 seconds (because of the 120-column screen), but whatever.
The final bug was that clear-screen wasn't actually working right for
fake screens.
(The trace is too large for github, so I'm going to leave it out for
now.)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Still failing, though.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Delete comment-out marker from inside mu strings. Have to do this
manually for now.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
CRLF still shows as two newlines, though. Cross that bridge when we get
to it.
The new chessboard test is still hanging, though.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Drop the #$%# 'encapsulated' stack ADT.
|
| |
|
|
| |
..now that we support non-integers.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Mu allows us to use multiple ingredients/products without commas, but
make sure we don't.
$ grep "<- [^ ]\+ [^#\[,]* [^#\[,]*$" *
$ grep "^[ ]*[^ #,][^#,]* [^#,]* <- " *
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This one layer had grown a dependency on a later layer. I could swear I
ran all the tests when I fixed the test harness in 1358..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is a far cleaner way to provide *some* floating-point support. We
can only represent signed integers up to 2^51 rather than 2^63. But in
exchange we don't have to worry about it elsewhere, and it's probably
faster than checking tag bits in every operation.
Hmm, yeah, surprised how easy this was. I think I'll give up on the
other approach.
I still don't have non-integer literals. But we won't bother with those
until we need them. `3.14159:literal` seems ugly.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I added one test to check that divide can return a float, then hacked at
the rippling failures across the entire entire codebase until all tests
pass. Now I need to look at the changes I made and see if there's a
system to them, identify other places that I missed, and figure out the
best way to cover all cases. I also need to show real rather than
encoded values in the traces, but I can't use value() inside reagent
methods because of the name clash with the member variable. So let's
take a snapshot before we attempt any refactoring. This was non-trivial
to get right.
Even if I convince myself that I've gotten it right, I might back this
all out if I can't easily *persuade others* that I've gotten it right.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|