| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
This required completely redesigning scrolling.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'm now thinking about how to support scrolling on the sandbox side.
Caleb's idea is to use down-arrow inside the sandbox editor, and then
"scroll off" the editor to the top of each successive sandbox. I think
I'll reserve the white background as the cursor color in that situation.
I wonder if I should just undo all the support for sandbox labels since
yesterday. Labels are perhaps superfluous once I support scrolling and
reorder sandboxes to always throw ones with errors up top. But then you
can end up scrolling through lots of tests without any sense of how far
down you are. So the other approach is to keep labels and try to keep
them stable, not reorder them.
Looking further ahead I'm going to need a way to jump to a specific
sandbox. Maybe instead of reordering sandboxes I should just
automatically render from the first sandbox with error. Maybe show the
number of failed sandboxes in the status instead of the index of the
first failure.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
See `cannot_write_tests_for`.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
I had to undo some over-zealous changes in 2576.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- notes
bug in edit/ triggers in immutable but not master branch
bug triggered by changes to layer 059: we're finding an unspecialized call to 'length' in 'append_6'
hard to debug because trace isn't complete
just bring out the big hammer: use a new log file
length_2 from recipes.mu is not being deleted (bug #1)
so reload doesn't switch length to length_2 when variant_already_exists (bug #2)
so we end up saving in Recipe for a primitive ordinal
so no valid specialization is found for 'length' (bug #3)
why doesn't it trigger in a non-interactive scenario?
argh, wasn't checking for an empty line at end. ok, confidence restored.
|
| |
|
|
| |
No more bugs; phew.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Now I complain before running if a call somewhere doesn't line up with
its ingredients, or if no specialization can be made to match it.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A long-standing question resolved: why specializations sometimes skipped
some names. Turns out cleanup is incomplete if Recipe_ordinal and Recipe
aren't exactly lined up with each other, and the early exit in
new_variant was breaking that constraint.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
2473 was the final bugfix holding this back.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Requires carefully deleting specializations so that they can be
reintroduced each time.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This is happening because of our recent generic changes, which trigger
some post-processing transforms on all recipes even if we processed them
before. We could clear 'interactive' inside 'reload' to avoid this, but
random 'run' blocks in scenarios can still pick up errors from sandboxes
earlier in a scenario. The right place to clear the 'interactive' recipe
is right after we use it, in run_code_end().
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Caleb Couch. This one's been on my list for 2 weeks.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
And it caught a bug: I mean to always update type names and types in
sync.
The last month or so I've been getting reluctantly but inexorably
converted to the need and value of a type system. First I thought I just
need a minimal but rigorous type system to avoid memory corruption and
security issues. Now I think I also want it to be expressive enough to
be able to express what data different phases in a compiler read and
write, and to be able to designate specific fields as 'fully computed'
so that we can statically check that phases wait until their data is
available.
The phase-ordering problem in a compiler is perhaps the canary in the
coal-mine for a more general problem: even small changes can
dramatically explode the state space if they violate assumptions
previously held about the domain. My understanding of when type pointers
are null and not null is immeasurably more nuanced today than it was a
week ago, but I didn't need the nuance until I introduced generic
functions. That initial draft of a hundred lines bumped me up to a much
larger state space. How to make it more obvious when something happens
that is akin to discovering a new continent, or finding oneself
teleported to Jupiter?
Assumptions can be implicit or explicit. Perhaps a delete of an
assertion should be estimated at 1000 LoC of complexity?
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fix that stray issue with a better phase ordering.
Another thing I'm not testing.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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>.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Still seeing repeated null refinements. Maybe my approach to fixing
those errors is fundamentally broken.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Introducing a new 'newlayer' tag like 'todo', to record places where a
nascent new layer might be starting to bud off.
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|