about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/cpp/060string.mu
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 1116 - simpler memory checksKartik K. Agaram2015-04-201-52/+6
|
* 1109 - interpolate stringsKartik K. Agaram2015-04-201-0/+157
|
* 1101Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-191-14/+14
|
* 1100Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-191-0/+70
|
* 1099 - new recipe: convert integer to decimal stringKartik K. Agaram2015-04-181-0/+93
|
* 1097 - 'grow-buffer' works the first time!Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-181-0/+17
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I thought I'd need to duplicate scenarios to simulate running some code, making some checks, running some more code. But I can just keep saving state to raw locations! I'd still have to manage raw locations myself, though. And it can be ping-pongy to have to check on the other blocks then go back to the run block. But what's the alternative? Multiple run blocks (even excluding the implementation effort) raise questions of namespace sharing across them. If it gets too bad I can intersperse recipes inside the scenario. Yes, that will work. Of course, overly long tests might themselves be a bad idea. We'll see, this is all terra incognita syntactically speaking. This might not be enough to check that a routine is waiting on a channel, but should keep us until then. Wait, even there what you need is a way to check on the status of your child routines. Yeah, doable. Even if we're getting ahead of ourselves.
* 1096Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-181-1/+1
|
* 1090Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-171-0/+100
|
* 1088 - start porting the 'buffer' typeKartik K. Agaram2015-04-171-0/+17
|
* 1077Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-171-0/+2
|
* 1075Kartik K. Agaram2015-04-171-0/+96