| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It's just the other direction we want to avoid.
|
|
|
|
| |
2473 was the final bugfix holding this back.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
/raw is to express absolute addresses
/unsafe is to sidestep type-checking in test setup
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This turned out to be surprisingly easy: rather than try to specify the
types expected by each operation, just have primitive instructions go
through any other variants and only remain unnamed if no variants pass.
All I had to do was stop using contains_key() anywhere on Recipe_variants,
so that I could use get_or_insert() rather than get().
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Since we switched to end() for terminating trace lines, there's a lot
less reason to avoid this. We don't nest trace statements either
anymore.
I'd like to not hide warnings and still be able to make assertions on
their absence so that printed warnings also express as failed tests.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Not entirely happy with this. Maybe we'll find a better name. But at
least it's an improvement.
One part I *am* happy with is renaming string-replace to replace,
string-append to append, etc. Overdue, now that we have static dispatch.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Requires carefully deleting specializations so that they can be
reintroduced each time.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is happening because of our recent generic changes, which trigger
some post-processing transforms on all recipes even if we processed them
before. We could clear 'interactive' inside 'reload' to avoid this, but
random 'run' blocks in scenarios can still pick up errors from sandboxes
earlier in a scenario. The right place to clear the 'interactive' recipe
is right after we use it, in run_code_end().
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Another gotcha uncovered in the process of sorting out the previous
commit: I keep using eof() but forgetting that there are two other
states an istream can get into. Just never use eof().
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I ran into this when edit/ couldn't handle spaces after curly brackets,
even though .mu files could. Turns out edit/ loads code using
istringstreams rather than ifstreams, and you can't putback a different
character than you read from an istringstream. Craptastic gotcha..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I notice that it isn't working perfectly; after maximize/unmaximize the
editor stops wrapping text, like it still thinks the editor is
maximized.
We don't even use this feature anymore, do we? Just delete it rather
than bother debugging.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Starting to leave debug prints around once again, just in case one of
them is worth promoting to the trace..
|
|
|
|
| |
Yet another bugfix as I trace through the last session with Caleb.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Another little bit of polish: if a call doesn't do enough for a complete
specialization, show a decent error message and above all: don't die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Fix the drawback in the previous commit: if an ingredient is just a
literal 0 we'll skip its type-checking and hope to map type ingredients
elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I was failing to specialize calls containing literals. And then I had to
deal with whether literals should map to numbers or characters. (Answer:
both.)
One of the issues that still remains: shape-shifting recipes can't be
called with literals for addresses, even if it's 0.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In debugging 2438, I spent a while going around in circles trying to
decide if there was a stray overload of 'interactive'. Part of the
problem was the hacky delete of a recipe just above. Stop doing that.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
What was I thinking with 2366?
Thanks Caleb Couch. It turned out we couldn't call shape-shifting
recipes inside the edit/ or sandbox/ apps.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Lessons with Caleb uncovered a problem with type ingredients: I can call
shape-shifting recipes like 'push' from the commandline but not inside
the edit/ or sandbox/ apps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The rule is, an address ingredient is only modifiable if:
a) it's also a product
b) it's /contained-in some other ingredient+product
Only if an ingredient is a modifiable can you:
a) call get-address or index-address on it (the only way to write to it)
b) call other recipes that also return it in a product
I still don't check copies of the address. That's next.
Core mu passes this check, but none of the example apps do. edit/ and
sandbox/ are known to fail.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|