| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
One advantage of this approach: we don't end up with multiple lexical
scopes containing duplicates of the same modules.
|
| |
|
|
| |
https://tildegit.org/akkartik/lines.love/issues/1
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
file:write can write multiple args one after another; no need to
concatenate them first.
I'm starting to pay attention to memory usage after the experience of
turning off the JIT.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Along with the App helpers needed for them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
I also really need to rethink how people debug my programs. My approach
of inserting and deleting print() takes a lot of commitment. I need my
old trace-based whitebox testing idea. However, in my past projects I
never did figure out a good framework for tweaking how verbose a trace
to emit.
Perhaps that's too many knobs. Perhaps we just need a way to run a
single test with the most verbose trace possible. Then it's just a
matter of having the trace tell a coherent story? But even if the trace
stays out of program output in that situation, it's still in the
programmer's face in the _code_. Ugh.
Current plan: ship program with maximum tests and zero commented-out
prints. If you want to debug, insert prints. This is better than
previous, text-mode, projects just by virtue of the stdout channel being
dedicated to debug stuff.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
There's still an absence of affordance showing when you're in naming mode.
|
| | |
|
|
|
This is probably not ideal; let's see how it goes..
|