about summary refs log tree commit diff stats
path: root/edit/004-programming-environment.mu
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* 2735 - define recipes using 'def'Kartik K. Agaram2016-03-081-13/+13
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2716 - more holes in immutability checksKartik K. Agaram2016-02-261-3/+3
| | | | | We're still not done. Layer 60 doesn't yet handle variables in surrounding spaces. There's probably other issues..
* 2707Kartik K. Agaram2016-02-251-2/+0
|
* 2590 - support scrolling through sandboxesKartik K. Agaram2016-01-221-5/+6
|
* 2586 - show first sandbox with error in statusKartik K. Agaram2016-01-221-0/+3
|
* 2576 - distinguish allocated addresses from othersKartik K. Agaram2016-01-191-64/+64
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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. Agaram2015-12-281-8/+16
| | | | | | | | | | 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..
* rest of edit/ fixedKartik K. Agaram2015-12-151-5/+5
| | | | No more bugs; phew.
* 2468 - overload print-character as just 'print'Kartik K. Agaram2015-11-211-11/+11
|
* 2467 - rename 'string' to 'text' everywhereKartik K. Agaram2015-11-211-7/+7
| | | | | | | | 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.
* 2451 - drop zoom/maximize featureKartik K. Agaram2015-11-151-125/+0
| | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2371 - layer 5 of editKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-1/+1
|
* 2370 - layers 1-4 of edit are backKartik K. Agaram2015-11-051-62/+25
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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>.
* 2309Kartik K. Agaram2015-10-281-32/+32
|
* 2260 - start tracing by depth rather than labelKartik K. Agaram2015-10-061-6/+6
| | | | Now we can collect all traces, just modulating the depth.
* 2216Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-291-1/+0
|
* 2206 - fix missing ingredientsKartik K. Agaram2015-09-261-2/+2
| | | | | How the heck was this working until now? There must be redundant moves. And was I clobbering test data?
* 2182Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-121-1/+1
|
* 2172 - 'main' for 'mu edit' running just layer 1Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-061-1/+1
| | | | | | | | | 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.
* 2166Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-15/+2
|
* 2163Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-9/+14
| | | | | | | | `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.
* 2162Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-16/+2
|
* 2161Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-8/+8
| | | | | Starting on making the basic programming environment oblivious to warnings. That should come later.
* 2159Kartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-0/+139
|
* 2157 - edit/ now contains real layersKartik K. Agaram2015-09-051-1/+18
| | | | | | | | | 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/+652
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.