| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
Perhaps this is a bad idea. It feels arbitrary, what methods Lua happens
to include in string and table objects without having to go through the
respective modules.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When should code go in the template used by new apps vs the .lua files
distributed with Teliva?
- from a privilege perspective there's no difference
- from a compatibility perspective stuff in .tlv will not get upgraded
with Teliva.
- for me the maintainer, functions in .lua files are easier to upgrade
in a single place.
- for the reader of an app, functions in .lua files will not show up to
be edited. They can still be overloaded, but the current version isn't
as discoverable. Putting something in the app is a slight nudge to
readers that they're encouraged to mess with it.
- Stuff in .lua files can use local functions and so have more internal
complexity. Apps can also hide details within functions, but that'll
make them more likely to run into limitations with Teliva's editing
environment.
I'm not yet sure how to reason about the second point in practice.
- Stuff in .tlv files I don't have to worry about compatibility
guarantees for.
- Stuff in .lua files I _do_ have to worry about compatibility
guarantees for.
Perhaps this means I'm doing things exactly wrong in this commit?
Functions like map/reduce/filter/append seem more timeless, whereas I'm
still just feeling my way around with start_reading and start_writing.
We'll see. For now I'm ruled by the fourth point. Messing with tasks and
the scheduler is much more advanced than anything else in template.tlv;
it seems to make sense to add some friction to modifying them.
Bottomline: Complex sub-systems go in .lua files. Simple, self-contained
definitions go into apps. Both are probably equally burdensome now from
a compatibility perspective.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Really everywhere except zet.tlv. toot-toot is intended to emit
throwaway files anyway.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
They may take more or less from it (sieve.tlv in particular takes
nothing since call depth doesn't help at all there), but what they take
is in the right order so that you can compare across apps.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
For starters, this detail was puzzling when I returned to the Game of
Life app.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Tasteful apps should only perform side-effects through 'window'
arguments rather than the 'curses' module directly. It's ok however to
read constants like curses.A_NORMAL or curses.stdscr().
There are some limitations, unfortunately. Ncurses wasn't designed with
testability in mind. For example, there's no way to curs_set or
assume_default_colors without the 'curses' module. Oh well.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
This is for what the app does, as opposed to 'doc:main', which is also
intended to include commentary about the internal organization of the
app.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I'd already dropped the variant without a filename. But even the variant
with a filename is very easy to use in a way that is confusing to use in
the presence of sandboxing:
* call io.lines()
* Sandboxing saves an error, io.lines() returns nil
* Caller (usually a loop) raises an error.
* We show the error and not the sandboxing failure.
* Worse, there's no way to adjust permissions from within Teliva,
because we can't ever get to that menu while there's an error.
Best solution I can come up with: encourage a separate step for
translating filename to file handle. That way it's more obvious that we
need to check for errors.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
I can't believe I didn't notice this until now.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In each session, Teliva has to bootstrap a trusted channel with the
computer owner while running arbitrarily untrusted code. So let's get
really, really precise about what the trusted channel consists of:
- the bottom-most row of screen containing the menu
- the keystrokes the owner types in
- ncurses COLOR_PAIR slots 254 (menu) and 255 (error)
One reason the menu colors are important: we don't want people to get
used to apps that hide the menu colors by setting default
foreground/background to invisible and then drawing their own menu one
row up.
The error COLOR_PAIR I don't see any reason to carve out right now, but
it seems like a good idea for Teliva the framework to not get into the
habit of apps doing some things for it.
I'm not sure how realistic all this is (I feel quite ill-equipped to
think about security), but it seems worthwhile to err on the side of
paranoia. Teliva will be paranoid so people don't have to be.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
It's still just in app control; I'm resisting the urge to introduce
"smarts".
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Also start using 256 colors, under the assumption most people will have
them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It turns out Lua has been providing us this information all along! I'd
just not created the space on screen to show it. Make it persist better.
Kilo now no longer tracks its own status messages, which is a regression
in a rare condition.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
They don't have any semantics yet. We just ignore them for now.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
One old drawback now has a new look. Before, we loaded definitions in
order, so global definitions had to exist before other global
definitions that used them. See window and grid in life.tlv. Now we load
definitions in reverse order, so initialization needs to change. Worse,
if we update window, we need to edit grid just to fix the order.
This implies that we can't yet optimize away bindings where there are no
new changes.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
https://archive.org/details/akkartik-2021-11-14
|
| |
|