about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/edit/001-editor.mu
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 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.