| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Caused by 2591.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Still can't print non-integer numbers, so this is a bit hacky.
The big consequence is that you can't print literal characters anymore
because of our rules about how we pick which variant to statically
dispatch to. You have to save to a character variable first.
Maybe I can add an annotation to literals..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
One nice consequence of all my deduction of reply ingredients is that I
can insert the same fragment into recipes with different headers, and
everything works as long as reply instructions are implicitly deduced.
One thing I had to fix to make this work was to move reply-deduction out
of rewrite rules and turn it into a first-class transform, so that it
happens after tangling.
I'm glad to see the back of that hack inside <scroll-down>.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Still seeing repeated null refinements. Maybe my approach to fixing
those errors is fundamentally broken.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Takes the text to render inside the editor on the commandline:
$ ./mu edit/001-editor.mu -- abcdef
Layer 1 has no interactivity. Just shows the text you pass in on the
commandline, wrapping as you would expect. Press any key to exit.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
To run just until say layer 6, say this:
$ ./mu test edit/00[0-6]*
The layers are not perfect yet; there might be a few things (like the
warning fields) that need to move to a later layer.
|
|
|
Now you can bring up the programming environment by saying:
$ mu edit
The files under edit aren't yet *layers*, though, they have a few
dependencies that we need to clean up.
|