| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | 2735 - define recipes using 'def' | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-03-08 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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. | ||||
| * | 2576 - distinguish allocated addresses from others | Kartik K. Agaram | 2016-01-19 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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. | ||||
| * | 1868 - start using naked literals everywhere | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-07-28 | 1 | -2/+2 |
| | | | | | First step to reducing typing burden. Next step: inferring types. | ||||
| * | 1771 | Kartik K. Agaram | 2015-07-13 | 1 | -0/+14 |