| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Process type abbreviations in function headers.
Still a couple of places where doing this causes strange errors. We'll
track those down next.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
In the process I've uncover a couple of situations we don't support type
abbreviations yet. They're next.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
As much as possible; if the cursor moves off screen, it still resets to
top of screen.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This required the fix of 3051 to first-class recipe support, and will
next enable us to keep the cursor from moving in response to resize
events.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Clean up this helper before we start redoing sandbox menubars.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
Phew!
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Phew!
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
We're still not done. Layer 60 doesn't yet handle variables in
surrounding spaces. There's probably other issues..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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..
|
| |
|
|
| |
No more bugs; phew.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I notice that it isn't working perfectly; after maximize/unmaximize the
editor stops wrapping text, like it still thinks the editor is
maximized.
We don't even use this feature anymore, do we? Just delete it rather
than bother debugging.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now we can collect all traces, just modulating the depth.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
How the heck was this working until now?
There must be redundant moves. And was I clobbering test data?
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
`render-string` (and `render-code-string`; ugh) should start a new line
after, not before, like everybody else.
I've been meaning to fix this for a long time, but now I have to, to
move the warnings fields out of early layers.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Starting on making the basic programming environment oblivious to
warnings. That should come later.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|