mu/archive/1.vm/054static_dispatch.cc

684 lines
22 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
//: Transform to maintain multiple variants of a recipe depending on the
//: number and types of the ingredients and products. Allows us to use nice
//: names like 'print' or 'length' in many mutually extensible ways.
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_static_dispatch() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 7:num/raw <- test 3\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 1\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num, b:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 2\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 1 in location 7\n"
);
}
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
//: When loading recipes, accumulate variants if headers don't collide, and
2016-02-25 16:24:14 +00:00
//: flag an error if headers collide.
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
:(before "End Globals")
map<string, vector<recipe_ordinal> > Recipe_variants;
:(before "End One-time Setup")
put(Recipe_variants, "main", vector<recipe_ordinal>()); // since we manually added main to Recipe_ordinal
:(before "End Globals")
map<string, vector<recipe_ordinal> > Recipe_variants_snapshot;
:(before "End save_snapshots")
Recipe_variants_snapshot = Recipe_variants;
:(before "End restore_snapshots")
Recipe_variants = Recipe_variants_snapshot;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
:(before "End Load Recipe Header(result)")
// there can only ever be one variant for main
if (result.name != "main" && contains_key(Recipe_ordinal, result.name)) {
const recipe_ordinal r = get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name);
if (!contains_key(Recipe, r) || get(Recipe, r).has_header) {
string new_name = matching_variant_name(result);
if (new_name.empty()) {
// variant doesn't already exist
new_name = next_unused_recipe_name(result.name);
put(Recipe_ordinal, new_name, Next_recipe_ordinal++);
get_or_insert(Recipe_variants, result.name).push_back(get(Recipe_ordinal, new_name));
}
trace(101, "load") << "switching " << result.name << " to " << new_name << end();
result.name = new_name;
2016-05-27 16:50:39 +00:00
result.is_autogenerated = true;
}
}
else {
// save first variant
put(Recipe_ordinal, result.name, Next_recipe_ordinal++);
get_or_insert(Recipe_variants, result.name).push_back(get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name));
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
:(code)
string matching_variant_name(const recipe& rr) {
const vector<recipe_ordinal>& variants = get_or_insert(Recipe_variants, rr.name);
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(variants); ++i) {
if (!contains_key(Recipe, variants.at(i))) continue;
const recipe& candidate = get(Recipe, variants.at(i));
if (!all_reagents_match(rr, candidate)) continue;
return candidate.name;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
return "";
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
bool all_reagents_match(const recipe& r1, const recipe& r2) {
if (SIZE(r1.ingredients) != SIZE(r2.ingredients)) return false;
if (SIZE(r1.products) != SIZE(r2.products)) return false;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(r1.ingredients); ++i) {
expand_type_abbreviations(r1.ingredients.at(i).type);
expand_type_abbreviations(r2.ingredients.at(i).type);
if (!deeply_equal_type_names(r1.ingredients.at(i), r2.ingredients.at(i)))
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
return false;
}
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(r1.products); ++i) {
2016-09-14 08:56:41 +00:00
expand_type_abbreviations(r1.products.at(i).type);
expand_type_abbreviations(r2.products.at(i).type);
if (!deeply_equal_type_names(r1.products.at(i), r2.products.at(i)))
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
return false;
}
return true;
}
:(before "End Globals")
set<string> Literal_type_names;
:(before "End One-time Setup")
Literal_type_names.insert("number");
Literal_type_names.insert("character");
:(code)
bool deeply_equal_type_names(const reagent& a, const reagent& b) {
return deeply_equal_type_names(a.type, b.type);
2016-02-07 00:15:05 +00:00
}
bool deeply_equal_type_names(const type_tree* a, const type_tree* b) {
if (!a) return !b;
if (!b) return !a;
if (a->atom != b->atom) return false;
if (a->atom) {
if (a->name == "literal" && b->name == "literal")
return true;
if (a->name == "literal")
return Literal_type_names.find(b->name) != Literal_type_names.end();
if (b->name == "literal")
return Literal_type_names.find(a->name) != Literal_type_names.end();
return a->name == b->name;
}
return deeply_equal_type_names(a->left, b->left)
&& deeply_equal_type_names(a->right, b->right);
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
string next_unused_recipe_name(const string& recipe_name) {
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 2; /*forever*/; ++i) {
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
ostringstream out;
out << recipe_name << '_' << i;
2015-11-14 06:27:59 +00:00
if (!contains_key(Recipe_ordinal, out.str()))
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
return out.str();
}
}
//: Once all the recipes are loaded, transform their bodies to replace each
//: call with the most suitable variant.
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_static_dispatch_picks_most_similar_variant() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 7:num/raw <- test 3, 4, 5\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 1\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num, b:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 2\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 2 in location 7\n"
);
}
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
2015-11-19 18:29:55 +00:00
//: support recipe headers in a previous transform to fill in missing types
:(before "End check_or_set_invalid_types")
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.ingredients); ++i)
check_or_set_invalid_types(caller.ingredients.at(i).type, maybe(caller.name), "recipe header ingredient");
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.products); ++i)
check_or_set_invalid_types(caller.products.at(i).type, maybe(caller.name), "recipe header product");
2015-11-19 18:29:55 +00:00
//: save original name of recipes before renaming them
:(before "End recipe Fields")
string original_name;
//: original name is only set during load
:(before "End Load Recipe Name")
result.original_name = result.name;
//: after filling in all missing types (because we'll be introducing 'blank' types in this transform in a later layer, for shape-shifting recipes)
:(after "Transform.push_back(transform_names)")
Transform.push_back(resolve_ambiguous_calls); // idempotent
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
//: In a later layer we'll introduce recursion in resolve_ambiguous_calls, by
//: having it generate code for shape-shifting recipes and then transform such
//: code. This data structure will help error messages be more useful.
//:
//: We're punning the 'call' data structure just because it has slots for
//: calling recipe and calling instruction.
:(before "End Globals")
list<call> Resolve_stack;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
:(code)
2016-10-22 23:10:23 +00:00
void resolve_ambiguous_calls(const recipe_ordinal r) {
recipe& caller_recipe = get(Recipe, r);
trace(101, "transform") << "--- resolve ambiguous calls for recipe " << caller_recipe.name << end();
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int index = 0; index < SIZE(caller_recipe.steps); ++index) {
instruction& inst = caller_recipe.steps.at(index);
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
if (inst.is_label) continue;
resolve_ambiguous_call(r, index, inst, caller_recipe);
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
}
void resolve_ambiguous_call(const recipe_ordinal r, int index, instruction& inst, const recipe& caller_recipe) {
// End resolve_ambiguous_call(r, index, inst, caller_recipe) Special-cases
if (non_ghost_size(get_or_insert(Recipe_variants, inst.name)) == 0) return;
trace(102, "transform") << "instruction " << to_original_string(inst) << end();
Resolve_stack.push_front(call(r, index));
string new_name = best_variant(inst, caller_recipe);
if (!new_name.empty())
inst.name = new_name;
assert(Resolve_stack.front().running_recipe == r);
assert(Resolve_stack.front().running_step_index == index);
Resolve_stack.pop_front();
}
2017-12-04 07:51:42 +00:00
string best_variant(const instruction& inst, const recipe& caller_recipe) {
const vector<recipe_ordinal>& variants = get(Recipe_variants, inst.name);
vector<recipe_ordinal> candidates;
// Static Dispatch Phase 1
//? cerr << inst.name << " phase 1\n";
candidates = strictly_matching_variants(inst, variants);
if (!candidates.empty()) return best_variant(inst, candidates).name;
//? cerr << inst.name << " phase 3\n";
// Static Dispatch Phase 2
//: (shape-shifting recipes in a later layer)
// End Static Dispatch Phase 2
// Static Dispatch Phase 3
//? cerr << inst.name << " phase 4\n";
candidates = matching_variants(inst, variants);
if (!candidates.empty()) return best_variant(inst, candidates).name;
// error messages
if (!is_primitive(get(Recipe_ordinal, inst.name))) { // we currently don't check types for primitive variants
if (SIZE(variants) == 1) {
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << maybe(caller_recipe.name) << "types don't match in call for '" << to_original_string(inst) << "'\n" << end();
raise << " which tries to call '" << original_header_label(get(Recipe, variants.at(0))) << "'\n" << end();
}
else {
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << maybe(caller_recipe.name) << "failed to find a matching call for '" << to_original_string(inst) << "'\n" << end();
raise << " available variants are:\n" << end();
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(variants); ++i)
raise << " " << original_header_label(get(Recipe, variants.at(i))) << '\n' << end();
}
for (list<call>::iterator p = /*skip*/++Resolve_stack.begin(); p != Resolve_stack.end(); ++p) {
const recipe& specializer_recipe = get(Recipe, p->running_recipe);
const instruction& specializer_inst = specializer_recipe.steps.at(p->running_step_index);
if (specializer_recipe.name != "interactive")
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << " (from '" << to_original_string(specializer_inst) << "' in " << specializer_recipe.name << ")\n" << end();
else
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << " (from '" << to_original_string(specializer_inst) << "')\n" << end();
// One special-case to help with the rewrite_stash transform. (cross-layer)
if (specializer_inst.products.at(0).name.find("stash_") == 0) {
instruction stash_inst;
if (next_stash(*p, &stash_inst)) {
if (specializer_recipe.name != "interactive")
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << " (part of '" << to_original_string(stash_inst) << "' in " << specializer_recipe.name << ")\n" << end();
else
2017-05-26 23:43:18 +00:00
raise << " (part of '" << to_original_string(stash_inst) << "')\n" << end();
}
}
}
}
return "";
}
// phase 1
vector<recipe_ordinal> strictly_matching_variants(const instruction& inst, const vector<recipe_ordinal>& variants) {
vector<recipe_ordinal> result;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(variants); ++i) {
if (variants.at(i) == -1) continue;
trace(102, "transform") << "checking variant (strict) " << i << ": " << header_label(variants.at(i)) << end();
if (all_header_reagents_strictly_match(inst, get(Recipe, variants.at(i))))
result.push_back(variants.at(i));
}
return result;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
bool all_header_reagents_strictly_match(const instruction& inst, const recipe& variant) {
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < min(SIZE(inst.ingredients), SIZE(variant.ingredients)); ++i) {
if (!types_strictly_match(variant.ingredients.at(i), inst.ingredients.at(i))) {
trace(103, "transform") << "strict match failed: ingredient " << i << end();
return false;
}
}
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < min(SIZE(inst.products), SIZE(variant.products)); ++i) {
if (is_dummy(inst.products.at(i))) continue;
if (!types_strictly_match(variant.products.at(i), inst.products.at(i))) {
trace(103, "transform") << "strict match failed: product " << i << end();
return false;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
}
return true;
}
// phase 3
vector<recipe_ordinal> matching_variants(const instruction& inst, const vector<recipe_ordinal>& variants) {
vector<recipe_ordinal> result;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(variants); ++i) {
if (variants.at(i) == -1) continue;
trace(102, "transform") << "checking variant " << i << ": " << header_label(variants.at(i)) << end();
if (all_header_reagents_match(inst, get(Recipe, variants.at(i))))
result.push_back(variants.at(i));
}
return result;
}
bool all_header_reagents_match(const instruction& inst, const recipe& variant) {
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < min(SIZE(inst.ingredients), SIZE(variant.ingredients)); ++i) {
if (!types_match(variant.ingredients.at(i), inst.ingredients.at(i))) {
trace(103, "transform") << "match failed: ingredient " << i << end();
return false;
}
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < min(SIZE(variant.products), SIZE(inst.products)); ++i) {
if (is_dummy(inst.products.at(i))) continue;
if (!types_match(variant.products.at(i), inst.products.at(i))) {
trace(103, "transform") << "match failed: product " << i << end();
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
// tie-breaker for each phase
const recipe& best_variant(const instruction& inst, vector<recipe_ordinal>& candidates) {
assert(!candidates.empty());
if (SIZE(candidates) == 1) return get(Recipe, candidates.at(0));
int min_score = 999;
int min_index = 0;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(candidates); ++i) {
const recipe& candidate = get(Recipe, candidates.at(i));
2017-11-04 01:01:59 +00:00
// prefer variants without extra or missing ingredients or products
int score = abs(SIZE(candidate.products)-SIZE(inst.products))
+ abs(SIZE(candidate.ingredients)-SIZE(inst.ingredients));
2017-11-04 01:01:59 +00:00
// prefer variants with non-address ingredients or products
2017-04-05 02:43:57 +00:00
for (int j = 0; j < SIZE(candidate.ingredients); ++j) {
if (is_mu_address(candidate.ingredients.at(j)))
++score;
}
2017-04-05 02:43:57 +00:00
for (int j = 0; j < SIZE(candidate.products); ++j) {
if (is_mu_address(candidate.products.at(j)))
++score;
}
assert(score < 999);
if (score < min_score) {
min_score = score;
min_index = i;
}
}
return get(Recipe, candidates.at(min_index));
}
int non_ghost_size(vector<recipe_ordinal>& variants) {
int result = 0;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(variants); ++i)
if (variants.at(i) != -1) ++result;
return result;
}
bool next_stash(const call& c, instruction* stash_inst) {
const recipe& specializer_recipe = get(Recipe, c.running_recipe);
int index = c.running_step_index;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (++index; index < SIZE(specializer_recipe.steps); ++index) {
const instruction& inst = specializer_recipe.steps.at(index);
if (inst.name == "stash") {
*stash_inst = inst;
return true;
}
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
return false;
2015-10-30 04:23:48 +00:00
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_static_dispatch_disabled_in_recipe_without_variants() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num <- test 3\n"
"]\n"
"def test [\n"
" 2:num <- next-ingredient # ensure no header\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 34 in location 1\n"
);
}
void test_static_dispatch_disabled_on_headerless_definition() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def test a:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 1\n"
"]\n"
"def test [\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: redefining recipe test\n"
);
}
void test_static_dispatch_disabled_on_headerless_definition_2() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def test [\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num -> z:num [\n"
" z <- copy 1\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: redefining recipe test\n"
);
}
void test_static_dispatch_on_primitive_names() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num <- copy 34\n"
" 2:num <- copy 34\n"
" 3:bool <- equal 1:num, 2:num\n"
" 4:bool <- copy false\n"
" 5:bool <- copy false\n"
" 6:bool <- equal 4:bool, 5:bool\n"
"]\n"
// temporarily hardcode number equality to always fail
"def equal x:num, y:num -> z:bool [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" z <- copy false\n"
"]\n"
"# comparing numbers used overload\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
// comparing numbers used overload
"mem: storing 0 in location 3\n"
// comparing booleans continues to use primitive
"mem: storing 1 in location 6\n"
);
}
void test_static_dispatch_works_with_dummy_results_for_containers() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" _ <- test 3, 4\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num -> z:point [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" z <- merge a, 0\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:num, b:num -> z:point [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" z <- merge a, b\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_COUNT("error", 0);
}
void test_static_dispatch_works_with_compound_type_containing_container_defined_after_first_use() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" x:&:foo <- new foo:type\n"
" test x\n"
"]\n"
"container foo [\n"
" x:num\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:&:foo -> z:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" z:num <- get *a, x:offset\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_COUNT("error", 0);
}
void test_static_dispatch_works_with_compound_type_containing_container_defined_after_second_use() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" x:&:foo <- new foo:type\n"
" test x\n"
"]\n"
"def test a:&:foo -> z:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" z:num <- get *a, x:offset\n"
"]\n"
"container foo [\n"
" x:num\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_COUNT("error", 0);
}
void test_static_dispatch_on_non_literal_character_ignores_variant_with_numbers() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" x:char <- copy 10/newline\n"
" 1:num/raw <- foo x\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:num -> y:num [\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: ingredient 0 has the wrong type at '1:num/raw <- foo x'\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_DOESNT_CONTAIN("mem: storing 34 in location 1");
}
void test_static_dispatch_dispatches_literal_to_character() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num/raw <- foo 97\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:char -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
"# character variant is preferred\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 34 in location 1\n"
);
}
void test_static_dispatch_dispatches_literal_to_number_if_at_all_possible() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num/raw <- foo 97\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:char -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:num -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 35\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
// number variant is preferred
"mem: storing 35 in location 1\n"
);
}
:(replace{} "string header_label(const recipe_ordinal r)")
2016-10-22 23:10:23 +00:00
string header_label(const recipe_ordinal r) {
2016-05-25 01:58:23 +00:00
return header_label(get(Recipe, r));
}
:(code)
2016-05-25 01:58:23 +00:00
string header_label(const recipe& caller) {
ostringstream out;
2015-11-29 21:52:14 +00:00
out << "recipe " << caller.name;
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.ingredients); ++i)
out << ' ' << to_string(caller.ingredients.at(i));
2015-11-29 21:52:14 +00:00
if (!caller.products.empty()) out << " ->";
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.products); ++i)
out << ' ' << to_string(caller.products.at(i));
return out.str();
}
string original_header_label(const recipe& caller) {
ostringstream out;
out << "recipe " << caller.original_name;
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.ingredients); ++i)
out << ' ' << caller.ingredients.at(i).original_string;
if (!caller.products.empty()) out << " ->";
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE(caller.products); ++i)
out << ' ' << caller.products.at(i).original_string;
return out.str();
}
5001 - drop the :(scenario) DSL 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.
2019-03-13 01:56:55 +00:00
void test_reload_variant_retains_other_variants() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num <- copy 34\n"
" 2:num <- foo 1:num\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:num -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:&:num -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 35\n"
"]\n"
"def! foo x:&:num -> y:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 36\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 34 in location 2\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_COUNT("error", 0);
}
void test_dispatch_errors_come_after_unknown_name_errors() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" y:num <- foo x\n"
"]\n"
"def foo a:num -> b:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
"def foo a:bool -> b:num [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
" return 35\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: missing type for 'x' in 'y:num <- foo x'\n"
"error: main: failed to find a matching call for 'y:num <- foo x'\n"
);
}
void test_override_methods_with_type_abbreviations() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" s:text <- new [abc]\n"
" 1:num/raw <- foo s\n"
"]\n"
"def foo a:address:array:character -> result:number [\n"
" return 34\n"
"]\n"
// identical to previous variant once you take type abbreviations into account
"def! foo a:text -> result:num [\n"
" return 35\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 35 in location 1\n"
);
}
void test_ignore_static_dispatch_in_type_errors_without_overloading() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" x:&:num <- copy 0\n"
" foo x\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:&:char [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: types don't match in call for 'foo x'\n"
"error: which tries to call 'recipe foo x:&:char'\n"
);
}
void test_show_available_variants_in_dispatch_errors() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" x:&:num <- copy 0\n"
" foo x\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:&:char [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
"]\n"
"def foo x:&:bool [\n"
" local-scope\n"
" load-ingredients\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: failed to find a matching call for 'foo x'\n"
"error: available variants are:\n"
"error: recipe foo x:&:char\n"
"error: recipe foo x:&:bool\n"
);
}
:(before "End Includes")
using std::abs;