| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This seems more obvious to laypeople.
I've also come up with a design for sum types: I'm going to call them
exclusive containers. You call 'get' on containers, 'index' on arrays,
and 'maybe-convert' on exclusive containers (as well as tagged types,
but that's even later).
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm making two changes to how I compute field offsets:
a) I just replace offset names up front, before I even manage field
names. I don't bother disallowing x:integer and x:offset in the same
function. Let's see if that leads us astray. Certainly saves code.
b) I don't bother canonizing the first arg of a get since we know it
has to have a type that is some number of 'address' followed by a
record. Just assume that we have the right number of 'deref's.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Addresses for reagents are now computed after all transforms.
|
| | |
|
| |
|