| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
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.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Can't find a test case where it's reading comments it shouldn't be, so
far..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
We don't actually need skip_whitespace_AND_comments_BUT_NOT_newline
anywhere except next_word(). Perhaps what I should really do is split
the definition of next_word() into two variants..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
When skipping past some text (usually whitespace, but also commas and
comments) I need to always be aware of whether it's ok to switch to the
next line or not.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is long overdue. Let's see if it gets me using traces more during
debugging.
Though perhaps I'm being too persnickety. These are all valid ways to
debug programs:
a) print directly to screen
b) log, and then dump the log on some condition
c) temporarily print selected log statements directly to screen
d) log, and then browse the log using the zoom interface
For a) to work we need to normally keep prints empty.
For b) to work the log needs to be of some manageable size, where it's
tractable to find interesting features.
d) is the ultimate weapon, but might be slow because it's interactive
c) seems like the ugly case. Should I be trying to avoid it altogether?
Let's try, and see if d) is useable when we want to do c). For simple
cases it's still totally acceptable to just print. If the prints get too
complex to parse, then we move to the zoom interface. Hopefully it'll be
easier because we have to spend less time getting the prints just so.
(Independent of all this, often the best way to make a log manageable so
any of the approaches works: distill the bad behavior down to a test.
But that leads to chicken-and-egg situations where you need to first
understand before you can distill.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The idea is that to-text-line should truncate blindly past some
threshold, even if to-text isn't smart enough to avoid infinite loops.
Maybe I should define a 'truncating buffer' which stops once it fills
up. That would be an easy way to eliminate all infinite loops in
to-text-line.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Drop the display-list test because it's subsumed by the stash-on-list
test right below, which doesn't require the notion of a screen from
later layers.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Just one tangle of dependencies left in the transforms. Untangling it
will require one more region: for transforms modifying types (inside
instructions).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Some more structure to transforms, and flattening of dependencies
between them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In general you only want to specify one transform in terms of
(before/after) another if the other direction wouldn't work. Otherwise
try to make it work by just pushing transforms at the start/end of the
list.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ok, now I'm a little happier about our type checking. Type checking lies
in three layers:
layer 21: checking types, usually at run-time in the VM or just before
layer 57: checking type names
layer 59: checking type names
It's taken me the process of writing this commit to convince myself that
all three layers check mappings for literal values in a consistent
manner. Layer 21 uses sizes, and layers 57/59 have whitelists, but
either way the goal is that number != character != boolean unless
mediated through a literal.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
More cleanup. Haven't bothered to figure out why the trace for
specialize_with_literal_4 is repeatedly perturbed.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Eliminate one of several hacky type-check helpers; they've been
proliferating lately.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
'append' also implicitly calls 'to-text' unless there's a better
variant.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Literal '0' ingredients should map to numbers before addresses.
|