| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
write-stream-buffered isn't a clean abstraction. Ignoring the 'read' index
of a stream is a hack. It's just saving us the trouble of a rewind-stream.
So make it a helper of pack.subx rather than part of the standard library.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Done with pack.subx?!
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Testing conversion of multiple lines in a data segment.
Bugs fixed:
1. Stack issues in next-token helpers.
2. Needed to teach next-token to avoid newlines.
3. rewind-stream(line) before passing it to convert-code or convert-instruction.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Several bugs found after performing multiple loops through convert-data.
This has been a general pattern: given how unsafe the x86 'language' is,
the regular amount of testing with a single input doesn't really give sufficient
confidence. Ever-present is the possibility that I forgot to pop something
from the stack, either a spilled register or a local. Calling functions
multiple times seems to help detect such bugs. So far I've been doing this
extra level of testing implicitly when I build the next higher abstraction.
But with `convert-data` the buck stopped, and much painful debugging ensued.
One thing that would help is if `write` on streams didn't remain silent
on overflow. But we actually need that sometimes, when streams are used
as buffers.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Add a bounds-check to `next-word`.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
New convention: compare 'with' for asymmetric comparisons (greater or lesser
than), and compare 'and' for symmetric comparisons. Worth making this distinction
even though the opcodes are identical; when we compare 'with', the order
of operands is significant.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I've been saying for a while[1][2][3] that adding extra abstractions makes
things harder for newcomers, and adding new notations doubly so. And then
I notice this DSL in my own backyard. Makes me feel like a hypocrite.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13565743#13570092
[2] https://lobste.rs/s/to8wpr/configuration_files_are_canary_warning
[3] https://lobste.rs/s/mdmcdi/little_languages_by_jon_bentley_1986#c_3miuf2
The implementation of the DSL was also highly hacky:
a) It was happening in the tangle/ tool, but was utterly unrelated to tangling
layers.
b) There were several persnickety constraints on the different kinds of
lines and the specific order they were expected in. I kept finding bugs
where the translator would silently do the wrong thing. Or the error messages
sucked, and readers may be stuck looking at the generated code to figure
out what happened. Fixing error messages would require a lot more code,
which is one of my arguments against DSLs in the first place: they may
be easy to implement, but they're hard to design to go with the grain of
the underlying platform. They require lots of iteration. Is that effort
worth prioritizing in this project?
On the other hand, the DSL did make at least some readers' life easier,
the ones who weren't immediately put off by having to learn a strange syntax.
There were fewer quotes to parse, fewer backslash escapes.
Anyway, since there are also people who dislike having to put up with strange
syntaxes, we'll call that consideration a wash and tear this DSL out.
---
This commit was sheer drudgery. Hopefully it won't need to be redone with
a new DSL because I grow sick of backslashes.
|