| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
We're calling them streams since they support appending.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Known issue: circles of radius 9 crash. (Multiples of 9 overflow the trace.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
We'll save tab for inserting graphemes.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Show all builtins now that we have more space.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It requires more than 1GB to fill the screen with a chessboard pattern
using the definition in shell/iterative-definitions.limg.
I also speed up the chessboard program by clearing the screen up front
and then only rendering the white pixels.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Get rid of my experiment adding Game of Life to the shell.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Thanks Maxwell Bernstein for pointing this out 🤦♂️
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It took me _way_ too long to realize that I'm not checking for errors within
the loop, and that will cause it to manifest as an infinite loop as inner
evaluations fail to run.
Debugging notes, for posterity:
printing one row of a chessboard pattern over fake screen (chessboard screen 4 0 0 15) gets stuck in an infinite loop halfway through
debug pattern during infinite loop: VWEX. It's still in the loop but it's not executing the body
raw (fill_rect screen 16 0 20 4 15) works fine
same number of calls to fill_rect work fine
replacing calls to fill_rect with pixel inside chessboard2 works fine
at the point of the infinite loop it's repeatedly going through the hline loop
-- BUT it never executes the check of the loop (< lo hi) with lo=20, hi=20. Something is returning 1, but it's not inside <
stream optimization is not implicated
simple test case with a single loop
(
(globals . (
(foo . (fn () (screen i n)
(while (< i n)
(pixel screen 4 4 i)
(pixel screen 5 4 i)
(pixel screen 6 4 i)
(pixel screen 7 4 i)
(set i (+ i 1)))))
))
(sandbox . (foo screen 0 100))
)
simpler (if you reset cursor position before every print):
(
(globals . (
(foo . (fn () (screen i n)
(while (< i n)
(print screen i)
(set i (+ i 1)))))
))
(sandbox . (foo screen 0 210))
)
I now believe it has nothing to do with the check. The check always works.
Sometimes no body is evaluated. And so the set has no effect.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
'def' creates new bindings (only in globals)
'set' only modifies existing bindings (either in env or globals)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
I'm currently doing this extremely naively/slowly/uglily. Not a bottleneck.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All highly experimental. Current constraints:
* No tail recursion elimination
* No heap reuse
* Keep implementation simple
So it's slow, and I don't want to complicate it to speed it up. So I'm
investing in affordances to help deal with the slowness. However, in the
process I've taken the clean abstraction of a trace ("all you need to do
is add to the trace") and bolted on call counts and debug-prints as independent
mechanisms.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
(brline . (fn () (screen x0 y0 x1 y1 color)
((fn (dx dy sx sy)
((fn (err)
(brline1 screen x0 y0 x1 y1 dx dy sx sy err color))
(+ dx dy)))
(abs (- x1 x0))
(- 0 (abs (- y1 y0)))
(sgn (- x1 x0))
(sgn (- y1 y0)))))
(brline1 . (fn () (screen x y xmax ymax dx dy sx sy err color)
(pixel screen x y color)
(if (andf (= x xmax) (= y ymax))
()
((fn (e2)
(brline1 screen
(if (>= e2 dy)
(+ x sx)
x)
(if (<= e2 dx)
(+ y sy)
y)
xmax
ymax
dx
dy
sx
sy
(+ err
(+
(if (>= e2 dy)
dy
0)
(if (<= e2 dx)
dx
0)))
color))
(* err 2)))))
sandbox: (brline screen 1 1 5 5 12)
There are two ideas stemming from this commit:
- I need an extremely compact on-screen trace to underlie the trace UX
- perhaps we should start truncating trace lines
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Before: we always drew pixels atop characters, and we only drew pixels
that were explicitly requested.
After: we always draw pixels atop characters, and we only draw pixels that
don't have color 0.
Both semantics should be identical as long as pixels are never drawn atop
characters.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Filling pixels isn't a rare corner case. I'm going to switch to a dense
rather than sparse representation for pixels, but callers will have to
explicitly request the additional memory.
|
| | |
|