about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/edit/001-editor.mu
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 3943Kartik K. Agaram2017-06-231-1/+0
| | | | Undo commit 3938 and almost everything after. Let's do this right.
* 3942Kartik K. Agaram2017-06-231-2/+2
| | | | | | | | No, my conclusion in the previous commit was wrong. When you print a character on the right margin, the cursor coordinates always wrap around to the left margin on the next row. It's just that if you're at the bottom of the screen, scrolling gives the impression that the row didn't change.
* 3941Kartik K. Agaram2017-06-231-0/+2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Even though the bug of commit 3938 is now fixed, I'm still trying to track down why the failure looked different on the fake screen than on the real one. Snapshot as I try to track down the difference. One key lesson is that the approach of commit 3860 -- updating the cursor before rather than after printing each character -- turns out to be untenable. A sequence of `print` followed by `cursor-position` needs to behave the same as the real screen. But it's still not clear how the real screen. When you get to the end of a line the cursor position wraps after print to the left margin (column 0) on the next row. When you get to the bottom right the cursor position wraps to the *bottom left* margin. How the heck does it know to scroll on the next print, then? Is there some hidden state in the terminal?
* 3880Kartik K. Agaram2017-05-271-16/+1
|
* 3861 - screen untouched when entering console modeKartik K. Agaram2017-05-181-0/+1
|
* 3860 - stop buffering the screen in termboxKartik K. Agaram2017-05-181-2/+0
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | To achieve this we have to switch to a model of the screen in termbox that is closer to the underlying terminal. Before: a screen is a grid of characters writing out of bounds does nothing After: a screen is a scrolling raster of characters writing out of bounds wraps to next line and scrolls if necessary To move to the new model, it was essential that I migrate my fake screen at the same time to mimic it. This is why the first attempt (commit 3824) failed (commit 3858). This is also why this commit can't be split into smaller pieces. The fake screen now 'scrolls' by rotating screen lines from top to bottom. There's still no notion of a scrollback buffer. The newer model is richer; it permits repl-like apps that upstream termbox can't do easily. It also permits us to simply use `printf` or `cout` to write to the screen, and everything mostly works as you would expect. Exceptions: a) '\n' won't do what you expect. You need to explicitly print both '\n' and '\r'. b) backspace won't do what you expect. It only moves the cursor back, without erasing the previous character. It does not wrap. Both behaviors exactly mimic my existing terminal's emulation of vt100. The catch: it's easy to accidentally scroll in apps. Out-of-bounds prints didn't matter before, but they're bugs now. To help track them down, use the `save-top-idx`, `assert-no-scroll` pair of helpers. An important trick is to wrap the cursor before rather after printing a character. Otherwise we end up scrolling every time we print to the bottom-right character. This means that the cursor position can be invalid at the start of a print, and we need to handle that. In the process we also lose the ability to hide and show the screen. We have to show the prints happening. Seems apt for a "white-box" platform like Mu.
* 3854Kartik K. Agaram2017-05-131-0/+2
| | | | Revert commits 3824, 3850 and 3852. We'll redo them more carefully.
* 3824 - experiment: stop buffering in termboxKartik K. Agaram2017-04-161-2/+6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Now it's much more apparent why things are slow. You can see each repaint happening. Already I fixed one performance bug -- in clear-rest-of-screen. Since this subverts Mu's fake screen there may be bugs. Another salubrious side effect: I've finally internalized that switching to raw mode doesn't have to clear the screen. That was just an artifact of how termbox abstracted operations. Now I can conceive of using termbox to build a repl as well. (I was inspired to poke into termbox internals by http://viewsourcecode.org/snaptoken/kilo and https://github.com/antirez/linenoise)
* 3806Kartik K. Agaram2017-03-211-9/+4
|
* 3797Kartik K. Agaram2017-03-151-1/+0
|
* 3733Kartik K. Agaram2017-01-111-1/+1
|
* 3731Kartik K. Agaram2017-01-111-1/+2
| | | | Bitrot in main when loading just layer 1 of the edit/ and sandbox/ apps.
* 3699Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-281-7/+5
| | | | | Delete some obsolete /same-as-ingredient attributes. We should always let Mu deduce those at this point.
* 3696Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-271-35/+38
| | | | | | Decouple editor initialization from rendering to screen. This hugely simplifies the header of 'new-editor' and makes clear that it was only using the screen for rendering.
* 3695Kartik K. Agaram2016-11-271-10/+10
|
* 3561Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-221-1/+1
|
* 3552Kartik K. Agaram2016-10-221-6/+6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Stop requiring jump instructions to explicitly provide a ':label' type for jump targets. This has been a source of repeated confusion for my students: a) They'd add the ':label' to the label definition rather than the jump target (label use) b) They'd spend time thinking about whether the initial '+' prefix was part of the label name. In the process I cleaned up a couple of things: - the space of names is more cleanly partitioned into labels and non-labels (clarifying that '_' and '-' are non-label prefixes) - you can't use label names as regular variables anymore - you can infer the type of a label just from its name
* 3429 - standardize Mu scenariosKartik K. Agaram2016-09-281-15/+23
| | | | | | | | | | | | | A long-standing problem has been that I couldn't spread code across 'run' blocks because they were separate scopes, so I've ended up making them effectively comments. Running code inside a 'run' block is identical in every way to simply running the code directly. The 'run' block is merely a visual aid to separate setup from the component under test. In the process I've also standardized all Mu scenarios to always run in a local scope, and only use (raw) numeric addresses for values they want to check later.
* 3396Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-11/+11
|
* 3391 - type abbreviations everywhereKartik K. Agaram2016-09-171-68/+68
| | | | | | | | | Well, almost. I can't use them in some places in C++ where I'm just creating a temporary reagent without passing it through transforms. Like in some unit tests. I can't use them in memory-should-contain. And there's one remaining bug: I can't use abbreviations in a couple of places in 075channel.mu.
* 3341Kartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-3/+3
| | | | | | | Process type abbreviations in function headers. Still a couple of places where doing this causes strange errors. We'll track those down next.
* 3337 - first use of type abbreviations: textKartik K. Agaram2016-09-121-18/+18
| | | | | In the process I've uncover a couple of situations we don't support type abbreviations yet. They're next.
* 2983 - migrate buttons over to sandbox/Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-191-20/+0
|
* 2977 - draw new sandbox menu in edit/Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-191-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Doesn't work as advertised yet. This is just the render piece, and fixing all the tests. I've been careful to try to break tests for edit once I implement the button. Delete I can't ensure will break afterwards. Remember to test clicking on multiple places on the menu. Managing the screens is starting to grow onerous; maybe we need something called normalize which clears some things. But the sandbox menu can be on arbitrary lines..
* 2975Kartik K. Agaram2016-05-191-4/+5
| | | | Clean up this helper before we start redoing sandbox menubars.
* 2864 - replace all address:shared with just addressKartik K. Agaram2016-04-241-38/+38
| | | | | | | Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always track refcounts for all addresses. Phew!
* 2853 - purge get-address from edit/ appKartik K. Agaram2016-04-221-38/+31
| | | | Phew!
* 2735 - define recipes using 'def'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-081-16/+16
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2604 - clearing line was sometimes hiding cursorKartik K. Agaram2016-01-251-1/+1
| | | | Caused by 2591.
* 2591Kartik K. Agaram2016-01-221-1/+7
|
* 2590 - support scrolling through sandboxesKartik K. Agaram2016-01-221-2/+6
|
* 2576 - distinguish allocated addresses from othersKartik K. Agaram2016-01-191-41/+41
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2548 - teach 'print' to print integersKartik K. Agaram2015-12-281-2/+4
| | | | | | | | | | 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..
* layers 1 and 2 of edit/ now workingKartik K. Agaram2015-12-151-1/+1
|
* 2468 - overload print-character as just 'print'Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-211-3/+3
|
* 2467 - rename 'string' to 'text' everywhereKartik K. Agaram2015-11-211-2/+2
| | | | | | | | 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.
* 2460 - headers for remaining recipesKartik K. Agaram2015-11-181-3/+3
|
* 2446 - drop '-duplex' namespacing in recipesKartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-10/+10
| | | | Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
* 2442Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-2/+1
| | | | | | 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.
* 2441 - never miss any specializationsKartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-1/+2
| | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2371 - layer 5 of editKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-2/+1
|
* 2370 - layers 1-4 of edit are backKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-3/+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>.
* 2369 - layer 1 of edit is backKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-27/+16
|
* 2368 - start getting edit working againKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-16/+11
| | | | | Still seeing repeated null refinements. Maybe my approach to fixing those errors is fundamentally broken.
* 2309Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-281-17/+17
|
* 2172 - 'main' for 'mu edit' running just layer 1Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-061-0/+13
| | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2159Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-139/+0
|
* 2157 - edit/ now contains real layersKartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-0/+1
| | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2156 - split edit.mu into multiple filesKartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-0/+625
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.