| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When I first forked it from the edit/ app, I wasn't sure how to deal
with changing the recipe side when the only way the program accesses it
is with the untestable 'restore' hack. Now we introduce a little hook
into event-loop and pass in any updated recipe side directly.
In the process I've cleaned up several minor stylistic inconsistencies
between edit/ and sandbox/ apps.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
This required completely redesigning scrolling.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It also seems useful that the number maps to the name of the file the
sandbox is saved in. However this mapping is currently a happy accident
and not actually tested.
I'm starting to switch gears and help make the editor useable with
many many sandboxes. This is just the first step of several.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
No more bugs; phew.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
If a name repeats between ingredients, we raise an error.
If a name repeats across ingredients and products, every call should
share the same name across the corresponding ingredients and products.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now we can collect all traces, just modulating the depth.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We still can't check ingredient types, and even this is still a run-time
check. We'll need to start tracking recipe signatures at some point.
I've had to introduce a hack called /skiptypecheck. Time to get generics
working.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Jack and Caleb Couch for the idea.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|