| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Reorder products of some functions in the edit/ and sandbox/ apps. My
recent realization: always return 'real' products before ones that just
indicate an ingredient is mutable.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Delete some obsolete /same-as-ingredient attributes. We should always
let Mu deduce those at this point.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Update sandbox/ with recent changes to edit/ (commit 3695 onwards).
[Incidentally, this is the first commit to be made while running on
OpenBSD. Simulated and host systems are going to blur together from now
on.]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Revert commit 3457, where I switched the unicode characters used in the
edit/ app to something that doesn't render double-wide in html. It turns
out that the new unicode characters made iTerm2 sluggish in alt-tabbing
between windows. (Commit 3488 only fixed the screen-clearing issue.)
I haven't reverted the html files. I'm going to redo commit 3457 next so
the html files continue to render like they do now.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Switch around some unicode characters in the edit/ app so that it
renders more cleanly in html (with monospace fonts).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Ugly that we didn't need 'screen' to provide a type in scenarios
(because assume-screen expands to a definition of 'screen') but we did
need a type for 'console'. Just never require types for special names in
scenarios.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
In the process I've uncover a couple of situations we don't support type
abbreviations yet. They're next.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
In the process I've also simplified the sandbox/ app. Since it's
impossible for sandbox editors to span multiple pages, we can drop all
scroll support altogether.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we no longer have non-shared addresses, we can just always
track refcounts for all addresses.
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thanks Nicolas Léveillé for running up against this bug:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11094837
(Also noticed and fixed several subsidiary issues. This whole aspect
doesn't seem fully baked yet.)
|
| |
|
|
| |
Moving back to wrapped line was overflowing the right margin.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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..
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Great that it just worked after the previous commit.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
Thanks Jack and Caleb Couch for the idea.
|