| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | 3414 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-24 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3398 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-18 | 1 | -6/+11 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3322 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-11 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3318 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-10 | 1 | -0/+24 |
| | | | | | Describe immutability checks in the Readme. | ||||
| * | 3317 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-10 | 1 | -4/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3316 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-10 | 1 | -1/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3314 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-09-10 | 1 | -21/+25 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3173 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-08-12 | 1 | -23/+23 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3101 - purge .traces/ dir from repo history | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-07-05 | 1 | -6/+0 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I'd been toying with this idea for some time now given how large the repo had been growing. The final straw was noticing that people cloning the repo were having to wait *5 minutes*! That's not good, particularly for a project with 'tiny' in its description. After purging .traces/ clone time drops to 7 seconds in my tests. Major issue: some commits refer to .traces/ but don't really change anything there. That could get confusing :/ Minor issues: a) I've linked inside commits on GitHub like a half-dozen times online or over email. Those links are now liable to eventually break. (I seem to recall GitHub keeps them around as long as they get used at least once every 60 days, or something like that.) b) Numbering of commits is messed up because some commits only had changes to the .traces/ sub-directory. | ||||
| * | 3100 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-07-04 | 1 | -0/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3099 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-07-04 | 1 | -1/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 3068 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-06-26 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2997 - new version of http://akkartik.name/about | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-05-23 | 1 | -4/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2940 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-05-08 | 1 | -0/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2877 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-04-27 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2876 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-04-27 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2865 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-04-24 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2833 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-04-14 | 1 | -1/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2785 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-15 | 1 | -7/+12 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2783 - typo in Readme; thanks John Lamping | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-14 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2761 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-11 | 1 | -10/+8 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2758 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -4/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2757 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2756 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -6/+6 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2755 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -10/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2754 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2753 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2752 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -1/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2751 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -103/+31 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2750 - take out all philosophy from the Readme | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-10 | 1 | -197/+61 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2747 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-09 | 1 | -0/+4 |
| | | | | | Thanks Ben Trask for engaging with my arguments. | ||||
| * | 2742 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -41/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2738 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -16/+16 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2737 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2735 - define recipes using 'def' | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -29/+29 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very slowly decide on the right terminology with my students. I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient? It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on github and for people learning programming using Mu. | ||||
| * | 2734 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -7/+7 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2733 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-07 | 1 | -0/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2732 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-07 | 1 | -1/+10 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2731 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-07 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2730 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-07 | 1 | -43/+159 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2729 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-06 | 1 | -7/+12 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2723 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-02-29 | 1 | -5/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2651 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-02-12 | 1 | -7/+2 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2650 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-02-12 | 1 | -4/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2562 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-17 | 1 | -1/+1 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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. | ||||
| * | 2437 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-11-14 | 1 | -3/+4 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2427 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-11-12 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2426 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-11-11 | 1 | -5/+62 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2425 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-11-10 | 1 | -7/+8 |
| | | |||||
| * | 2176 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-09-06 | 1 | -3/+3 |
| | | |||||