| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Ella Couch for reporting this.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Periodic cleanup to replace 'reply' with 'return' everywhere in the
repo.
I use 'reply' for students to help reinforce the metaphor of function
calls as being like messages through a pipe. But that causes 'reply' to
get into my muscle memory when writing Mu code for myself, and I worry
that that makes Mu seem unnecessarily alien to anybody reading on
Github.
Perhaps I should just give it up? I'll try using 'return' with my next
student.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Follow-up to commit 3321: move get_base_type() more thoroughly to layer
55. The notion of a base_type doesn't really make sense before we
introduce type ingredients and shape-shifting containers, and it
simplifies early layers a *lot* even including the cost of that *ugly*
preamble in layer 55 to retrofit all the places.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Don't crash on bad types.
I need to be more careful in distinguishing between the two causes of
constraint violations: bad input and internal bugs. Maybe I should
create a second assert() to indicate "this shouldn't really be an
assert, but I'm too lazy to think about it right now."
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
size_of(type_tree*) is a mess; clean it up with an eye to the final
tangled version.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I was under the impression that I only needed static array lengths for
container members, but these are *payload* types for allocations. So we
need to compute the size of a dynamic array.
|
| |
|
|
| |
We weren't checking within (static) array elements for addresses.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Extract a helper to compute the element type of an array. As a side
effect, the hack for disambiguating array:address:number and
array:number:3 is now in just one place.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Eject some array-related code out of the container layer.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Standardize on calling literate waypoints "Special-cases" rather than
"Cases". Invariably there's a default path already present.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Following commit 3637, rename another auxiliary variable with our new
convention.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Reorder a couple of nonsensically-placed fragments.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Programming languages need some higher-level language construct that's
neither an interface nor a class nor an object but a *collection of
mutually recursive functions with a well-defined set of entry points and
common ingredients. Perhaps the solution here is the Haskell "save your
boilerplate" paper. For now I'm going to include the purpose in
auxiliary variable names that aren't really necessary for the core
processing of a function.
Thanks Caleb Couch for reporting this issue.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Follow-up to commit 3628.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
To do so, run:
$ ./mu --trace test <scenario name>
The trace will then be in file 'interactive'.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Jack Couch for accidentally leading me to this bug.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Follow-up to commit 3516.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Follow-up to commit 3622. Even though there's no code change that's just
a happy accident; we hadn't at all considered this constraint thus far.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Umpteenth bugfix to ensure we show the number of failed scenarios.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Fix CI.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks Rebecca Allard for running into this.
The test is in layer 13 even though the code that regressed was fixed in
layer 71, because the test was working as-is in earlier layers.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|