| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Reorganize further to make edit/008-sandbox-test more self-contained.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If you restore 2 sandboxes, the first render was setting
response-starting-row-on-screen on both, without ever rendering a
response. If the lower sandbox contained a print and rendered the screen
instead of the response, the original response-starting-row-on-screen
was never reset. If the process of running the sandboxes caused the
lower sandbox's title bar to move below the now-stale
response-starting-row-on-screen[1], editing the lower sandbox no longer
works.
[1] (Either because the upper sandbox prints to screen as well (causing
the first F4 to move the lower sandbox down by several lines), or
because a fresh sandbox is created with several lines before the first
F4 is hit.)
Current solution: never set response-starting-row-on-screen during
reload (or otherwise when there's no response).
This is hard to test right now because 'restore' is not a tested
interface, and I can't come up with another situation where the
response-starting-row-on-screen goes stale. So I'm now trying to keep
all changes to response-starting-row-on-screen close together. Another
idea is to add a check that the click row lies below the
response-starting row *and* above the start of the next sandbox. (But
what if there's no next sandbox?)
(This bug is really a regression, introduced last Sep in 2163.)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'd feared that the refcount errors in the previous commit meant there
was a bug in my ref-counting, so I temporarily used new variables rather
than reusing existing ones. But it turns out the one remaining place
memory corruption can happen is when recipes don't use default-scope and
so end up sharing memory. Don't I have a warning for this?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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 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.
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|
| | |
|
|
|
Thanks Jack and Caleb Couch for the idea.
|