mu/archive/1.vm/011load.cc

490 lines
13 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

2016-10-22 23:56:07 +00:00
//: Phase 1 of running Mu code: load it from a textual representation.
2016-10-04 15:18:43 +00:00
//:
2016-10-22 23:56:07 +00:00
//: The process of running Mu code:
2016-10-04 15:18:43 +00:00
//: load -> transform -> run
2015-04-17 18:22:59 +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_first_recipe() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
vector<recipe_ordinal> load(string form) {
istringstream in(form);
2015-04-06 17:14:29 +00:00
in >> std::noskipws;
return load(in);
2015-04-06 18:33:29 +00:00
}
vector<recipe_ordinal> load(istream& in) {
2015-06-15 20:58:08 +00:00
in >> std::noskipws;
vector<recipe_ordinal> result;
while (has_data(in)) {
skip_whitespace_and_comments(in);
if (!has_data(in)) break;
string command = next_word(in);
if (command.empty()) {
assert(!has_data(in));
break;
}
// Command Handlers
if (command == "recipe" || command == "def") {
recipe_ordinal r = slurp_recipe(in);
if (r > 0) result.push_back(r);
}
else if (command == "recipe!" || command == "def!") {
Disable_redefine_checks = true;
recipe_ordinal r = slurp_recipe(in);
if (r > 0) result.push_back(r);
Disable_redefine_checks = false;
}
// End Command Handlers
else {
2016-02-26 21:04:55 +00:00
raise << "unknown top-level command: " << command << '\n' << end();
}
}
2015-03-14 00:39:32 +00:00
return result;
}
// return the recipe ordinal slurped, or -1 if it failed
int slurp_recipe(istream& in) {
2015-10-29 20:01:04 +00:00
recipe result;
result.name = next_word(in);
if (result.name.empty()) {
assert(!has_data(in));
raise << "file ended with 'recipe'\n" << end();
return -1;
}
2016-02-12 01:42:20 +00:00
// End Load Recipe Name
skip_whitespace_but_not_newline(in);
2016-02-10 18:20:33 +00:00
// End Recipe Refinements
2015-10-29 20:01:04 +00:00
if (result.name.empty())
2016-02-26 21:04:55 +00:00
raise << "empty result.name\n" << end();
trace(101, "parse") << "--- defining " << result.name << end();
if (!contains_key(Recipe_ordinal, result.name))
put(Recipe_ordinal, result.name, Next_recipe_ordinal);
result.ordinal = get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name);
++Next_recipe_ordinal;
if (Recipe.find(get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name)) != Recipe.end()) {
trace(101, "parse") << "already exists" << end();
if (should_check_for_redefine(result.name))
2016-02-26 21:04:55 +00:00
raise << "redefining recipe " << result.name << "\n" << end();
Recipe.erase(get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name));
}
slurp_body(in, result);
2016-02-10 18:20:33 +00:00
// End Recipe Body(result)
put(Recipe, get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name), result);
return get(Recipe_ordinal, result.name);
}
void slurp_body(istream& in, recipe& result) {
2015-10-25 21:57:40 +00:00
in >> std::noskipws;
skip_whitespace_but_not_newline(in);
2015-03-31 04:22:29 +00:00
if (in.get() != '[')
raise << result.name << ": recipe body must begin with '['\n" << end();
skip_whitespace_and_comments(in); // permit trailing comment after '['
instruction curr;
while (next_instruction(in, &curr)) {
curr.original_string = to_original_string(curr);
// End Rewrite Instruction(curr, recipe result)
trace(102, "load") << "after rewriting: " << to_string(curr) << end();
if (!curr.is_empty()) result.steps.push_back(curr);
}
}
bool next_instruction(istream& in, instruction* curr) {
curr->clear();
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
skip_whitespace_and_comments(in);
if (!has_data(in)) {
raise << "incomplete recipe at end of file (0)\n" << end();
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
return false;
}
vector<string> words;
while (has_data(in) && in.peek() != '\n') {
skip_whitespace_but_not_newline(in);
if (!has_data(in)) {
raise << "incomplete recipe at end of file (1)\n" << end();
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
return false;
}
string word = next_word(in);
if (word.empty()) {
assert(!has_data(in));
raise << "incomplete recipe at end of file (2)\n" << end();
return false;
}
words.push_back(word);
skip_whitespace_but_not_newline(in);
}
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
skip_whitespace_and_comments(in);
if (SIZE(words) == 1 && words.at(0) == "]")
2015-03-14 00:39:32 +00:00
return false; // end of recipe
if (SIZE(words) == 1 && is_label_word(words.at(0))) {
curr->is_label = true;
curr->label = words.at(0);
trace(103, "parse") << "label: " << curr->label << end();
if (!has_data(in)) {
raise << "incomplete recipe at end of file (3)\n" << end();
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
return false;
}
return true;
}
vector<string>::iterator p = words.begin();
if (find(words.begin(), words.end(), "<-") != words.end()) {
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (; *p != "<-"; ++p)
curr->products.push_back(reagent(*p));
++p; // skip <-
}
if (p == words.end()) {
2016-02-26 21:04:55 +00:00
raise << "instruction prematurely ended with '<-'\n" << end();
return false;
}
curr->name = *p; ++p;
// curr->operation will be set at transform time
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (; p != words.end(); ++p)
curr->ingredients.push_back(reagent(*p));
trace(103, "parse") << "instruction: " << curr->name << end();
trace(103, "parse") << " number of ingredients: " << SIZE(curr->ingredients) << end();
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (vector<reagent>::iterator p = curr->ingredients.begin(); p != curr->ingredients.end(); ++p)
trace(103, "parse") << " ingredient: " << to_string(*p) << end();
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (vector<reagent>::iterator p = curr->products.begin(); p != curr->products.end(); ++p)
trace(103, "parse") << " product: " << to_string(*p) << end();
if (!has_data(in)) {
2016-02-26 21:04:55 +00:00
raise << "9: unbalanced '[' for recipe\n" << end();
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
return false;
}
// End next_instruction(curr)
2015-08-20 05:13:15 +00:00
return true;
}
2017-09-01 08:50:10 +00:00
// can return empty string -- only if 'in' has no more data
string next_word(istream& in) {
skip_whitespace_but_not_newline(in);
2015-10-27 18:31:05 +00:00
// End next_word Special-cases
ostringstream out;
slurp_word(in, out);
skip_whitespace_and_comments_but_not_newline(in);
2016-10-04 16:33:17 +00:00
string result = out.str();
if (result != "[" && ends_with(result, '['))
raise << "insert a space before '[' in '" << result << "'\n" << end();
return result;
}
bool is_label_word(const string& word) {
if (word.empty()) return false; // error raised elsewhere
return !isalnum(word.at(0)) && string("$_*@&,=-[]()").find(word.at(0)) == string::npos;
}
2016-10-04 16:33:17 +00:00
bool ends_with(const string& s, const char c) {
if (s.empty()) return false;
return *s.rbegin() == c;
}
:(before "End Globals")
// word boundaries
extern const string Terminators("(){}");
:(code)
void slurp_word(istream& in, ostream& out) {
char c;
if (has_data(in) && Terminators.find(in.peek()) != string::npos) {
in >> c;
out << c;
return;
}
while (in >> c) {
if (isspace(c) || Terminators.find(c) != string::npos || Ignore.find(c) != string::npos) {
in.putback(c);
break;
}
out << c;
}
}
void skip_whitespace_and_comments(istream& in) {
while (true) {
if (!has_data(in)) break;
if (isspace(in.peek())) in.get();
else if (Ignore.find(in.peek()) != string::npos) in.get();
else if (in.peek() == '#') skip_comment(in);
else break;
}
}
// confusing; move to the next line only to skip a comment, but never otherwise
void skip_whitespace_and_comments_but_not_newline(istream& in) {
while (true) {
if (!has_data(in)) break;
if (in.peek() == '\n') break;
if (isspace(in.peek())) in.get();
else if (Ignore.find(in.peek()) != string::npos) in.get();
else if (in.peek() == '#') skip_comment(in);
else break;
}
}
2015-03-17 05:47:28 +00:00
void skip_comment(istream& in) {
if (has_data(in) && in.peek() == '#') {
2015-03-17 05:47:28 +00:00
in.get();
while (has_data(in) && in.peek() != '\n') in.get();
2015-03-17 05:47:28 +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_recipe_instead_of_def() {
load(
"recipe main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_outside_recipe() {
load(
"# comment\n"
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_amongst_instruction() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" # comment\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_amongst_instruction_2() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" # comment\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
" # comment\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_amongst_instruction_3() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
" # comment\n"
" 2:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {2: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_after_instruction() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23 # comment\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_label() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" +foo\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: label: +foo\n"
);
}
void test_parse_dollar_as_recipe_name() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" $foo\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: $foo\n"
);
}
void test_parse_multiple_properties() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23/foo:bar:baz\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\", \"foo\": (\"bar\" \"baz\")}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_multiple_products() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number, 2:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: product: {2: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_multiple_ingredients() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number, 2:number <- copy 23, 4:number\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: ingredient: {4: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: product: {2: \"number\"}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_multiple_types() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number, 2:address:number <- copy 23, 4:number\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: instruction: copy\n"
"parse: ingredient: {23: \"literal\"}\n"
"parse: ingredient: {4: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: product: {1: \"number\"}\n"
"parse: product: {2: (\"address\" \"number\")}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_properties() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:address:number/lookup <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: product: {1: (\"address\" \"number\"), \"lookup\": ()}\n"
);
}
void test_parse_comment_terminated_by_eof() {
load("recipe main [\n"
" a:number <- copy 34\n"
"]\n"
"# abc"); // no newline after comment
cerr << "."; // termination = success
}
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_warn_on_missing_space_before_bracket() {
Hide_errors = true;
load(
"def main[\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: insert a space before '[' in 'main['\n"
);
}
2016-10-04 16:39:46 +00:00
2016-10-04 16:36:14 +00:00
//: Warn if a recipe gets redefined, because large codebases can accidentally
//: step on their own toes. But there'll be many occasions later where
//: we'll want to disable the errors.
:(before "End Globals")
bool Disable_redefine_checks = false;
2017-07-09 21:34:17 +00:00
:(before "End Reset")
2016-10-04 16:36:14 +00:00
Disable_redefine_checks = false;
:(code)
bool should_check_for_redefine(const string& recipe_name) {
if (Disable_redefine_checks) return false;
return true;
}
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_forbid_redefining_recipes() {
Hide_errors = true;
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 24\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: redefining recipe main\n"
);
}
void test_permit_forcibly_redefining_recipes() {
load(
"def main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 23\n"
"]\n"
"def! main [\n"
" 1:number <- copy 24\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_DOESNT_CONTAIN("error: redefining recipe main");
CHECK_TRACE_COUNT("error", 0);
}
2016-10-04 16:36:14 +00:00
// for debugging
void show_rest_of_stream(istream& in) {
cerr << '^';
char c;
while (in >> c)
cerr << c;
cerr << "$\n";
exit(0);
}