mu/035lookup.cc

665 lines
18 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//: Go from an address to the payload it points at using /lookup.
//:
//: The tests in this layer use unsafe operations so as to stay decoupled from
//: 'new'.
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_copy_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
// Treat locations 10 and 11 as an address to look up, pointing at the
// payload in locations 20 and 21.
" 30:num <- copy 10:&:num/lookup\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 94 in location 30\n"
);
}
:(before "End Preprocess read_memory(x)")
canonize(x);
//: similarly, write to addresses pointing at other locations using the
//: 'lookup' property
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
:(code)
void test_store_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:num
" 11:num <- copy 10\n"
" 10:&:num/lookup <- copy 94\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 94 in location 11\n"
);
}
:(before "End Preprocess write_memory(x, data)")
canonize(x);
//: writes to address 0 always loudly fail
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
:(code)
void test_store_to_0_fails() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" 10:&:num <- copy null\n"
" 10:&:num/lookup <- copy 94\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_DOESNT_CONTAIN("mem: storing 94 in location 0");
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: tried to lookup 0 in '10:&:num/lookup <- copy 94'\n"
);
}
//: attempts to /lookup address 0 always loudly fail
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_lookup_0_fails() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" 10:&:num <- copy null\n"
" 20:num <- copy 10:&:num/lookup\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: tried to lookup 0 in '20:num <- copy 10:&:num/lookup'\n"
);
}
void test_lookup_0_dumps_callstack() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" foo null\n"
"]\n"
"def foo [\n"
" 10:&:num <- next-input\n"
" 20:num <- copy 10:&:num/lookup\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: foo: tried to lookup 0 in '20:num <- copy 10:&:num/lookup'\n"
"error: called from main: foo null\n"
);
}
void canonize(reagent& x) {
if (is_literal(x)) return;
// Begin canonize(x) Lookups
while (has_property(x, "lookup"))
lookup_memory(x);
}
void lookup_memory(reagent& x) {
2018-05-13 02:55:21 +00:00
if (!x.type || x.type->atom || x.type->left->value != Address_type_ordinal) {
raise << maybe(current_recipe_name()) << "tried to lookup '" << x.original_string << "' but it isn't an address\n" << end();
dump_callstack();
return;
}
// compute value
if (x.value == 0) {
raise << maybe(current_recipe_name()) << "tried to lookup 0\n" << end();
dump_callstack();
return;
}
lookup_memory_core(x, /*check_for_null*/true);
2016-05-17 17:44:12 +00:00
}
void lookup_memory_core(reagent& x, bool check_for_null) {
double address = x.value + /*skip alloc id in address*/1;
double new_value = get_or_insert(Memory, address);
trace(Callstack_depth+1, "mem") << "location " << address << " contains " << no_scientific(new_value) << end();
// check for null
if (check_for_null && new_value == 0) {
if (Current_routine) {
raise << maybe(current_recipe_name()) << "tried to lookup 0 in '" << to_original_string(current_instruction()) << "'\n" << end();
dump_callstack();
}
else {
raise << "tried to lookup 0\n" << end();
}
}
// validate alloc-id
double alloc_id_in_address = get_or_insert(Memory, x.value);
double alloc_id_in_payload = get_or_insert(Memory, new_value);
//? cerr << x.value << ": " << alloc_id_in_address << " vs " << new_value << ": " << alloc_id_in_payload << '\n';
if (alloc_id_in_address != alloc_id_in_payload) {
raise << maybe(current_recipe_name()) << "address is already abandoned in '" << to_original_string(current_instruction()) << "'\n" << end();
dump_callstack();
}
// all well; complete the lookup
x.set_value(new_value+/*skip alloc id in payload*/1);
2018-05-16 06:22:08 +00:00
drop_from_type(x, "address");
drop_one_lookup(x);
}
:(after "Begin types_coercible(reagent to, reagent from)")
if (!canonize_type(to)) return false;
if (!canonize_type(from)) return false;
:(after "Begin types_match(reagent to, reagent from)")
if (!canonize_type(to)) return false;
if (!canonize_type(from)) return false;
:(after "Begin types_strictly_match(reagent to, reagent from)")
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
if (!canonize_type(to)) return false;
if (!canonize_type(from)) return false;
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
:(before "End Preprocess is_mu_array(reagent r)")
if (!canonize_type(r)) return false;
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
:(before "End Preprocess is_mu_address(reagent r)")
if (!canonize_type(r)) return false;
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
:(before "End Preprocess is_mu_number(reagent r)")
if (!canonize_type(r)) return false;
:(before "End Preprocess is_mu_boolean(reagent r)")
if (!canonize_type(r)) return false;
:(before "End Preprocess is_mu_character(reagent r)")
if (!canonize_type(r)) return false;
:(after "Update product While Type-checking Merge")
if (!canonize_type(product)) continue;
:(before "End Compute Call Ingredient")
canonize_type(ingredient);
:(before "End Preprocess NEXT_INGREDIENT product")
canonize_type(product);
:(before "End Check RETURN Copy(lhs, rhs)
canonize_type(lhs);
canonize_type(rhs);
:(code)
bool canonize_type(reagent& r) {
while (has_property(r, "lookup")) {
2018-05-13 02:55:21 +00:00
if (!r.type || r.type->atom || !r.type->left || !r.type->left->atom || r.type->left->value != Address_type_ordinal) {
raise << "cannot perform lookup on '" << r.name << "' because it has non-address type " << to_string(r.type) << '\n' << end();
return false;
}
drop_from_type(r, "address");
drop_one_lookup(r);
}
return true;
}
void drop_one_lookup(reagent& r) {
2016-10-20 05:10:35 +00:00
for (vector<pair<string, string_tree*> >::iterator p = r.properties.begin(); p != r.properties.end(); ++p) {
if (p->first == "lookup") {
r.properties.erase(p);
return;
}
}
assert(false);
}
//: Tedious fixup to support addresses in container/array instructions of previous layers.
//: Most instructions don't require fixup if they use the 'ingredients' and
//: 'products' variables in run_current_routine().
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_get_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 22:num <- copy 95\n"
" 30:num <- get 10:&:point/lookup, 0:offset\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 94 in location 30\n"
);
}
void test_get_indirect2() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 22:num <- copy 95\n"
// skip alloc id for destination
" 31:num <- copy 40\n"
" 30:&:num/lookup <- get 10:&:point/lookup, 0:offset\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 94 in location 41\n"
);
}
void test_include_nonlookup_properties() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 22:num <- copy 95\n"
" 30:num <- get 10:&:point/lookup/foo, 0:offset\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 94 in location 30\n"
);
}
:(after "Update GET base in Check")
if (!canonize_type(base)) break;
:(after "Update GET product in Check")
if (!canonize_type(product)) break;
:(after "Update GET base in Run")
canonize(base);
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
:(code)
void test_put_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 22:num <- copy 95\n"
" 10:&:point/lookup <- put 10:&:point/lookup, 0:offset, 96\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 96 in location 21\n"
);
}
:(after "Update PUT base in Check")
if (!canonize_type(base)) break;
:(after "Update PUT offset in Check")
if (!canonize_type(offset)) break;
:(after "Update PUT base in Run")
canonize(base);
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
:(code)
void test_put_product_error_with_lookup() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 22:num <- copy 95\n"
" 10:&:point <- put 10:&:point/lookup, x:offset, 96\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: product of 'put' must be first ingredient '10:&:point/lookup', but got '10:&:point'\n"
);
}
:(before "End PUT Product Checks")
reagent/*copy*/ p = inst.products.at(0);
if (!canonize_type(p)) break; // error raised elsewhere
reagent/*copy*/ i = inst.ingredients.at(0);
if (!canonize_type(i)) break; // error raised elsewhere
if (!types_strictly_match(p, i)) {
raise << maybe(get(Recipe, r).name) << "product of 'put' must be first ingredient '" << inst.ingredients.at(0).original_string << "', but got '" << inst.products.at(0).original_string << "'\n" << end();
break;
}
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
:(code)
void test_new_error() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" 1:num/raw <- new num:type\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: product of 'new' has incorrect type: '1:num/raw <- new num:type'\n"
);
}
:(after "Update NEW product in Check")
canonize_type(product);
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
:(code)
void test_copy_array_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:@:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 22:num <- copy 94\n"
" 23:num <- copy 95\n"
" 24:num <- copy 96\n"
" 30:@:num <- copy 10:&:@:num/lookup\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 3 in location 30\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 31\n"
"mem: storing 95 in location 32\n"
"mem: storing 96 in location 33\n"
);
}
void test_create_array_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:@:num:3
" 11:num <- copy 3000\n"
" 10:&:array:num:3/lookup <- create-array\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 3 in location 3001\n"
);
}
:(after "Update CREATE_ARRAY product in Check")
if (!canonize_type(product)) break;
:(after "Update CREATE_ARRAY product in Run")
canonize(product);
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
:(code)
void test_index_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:@:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 22:num <- copy 94\n"
" 23:num <- copy 95\n"
" 24:num <- copy 96\n"
" 30:num <- index 10:&:@:num/lookup, 1\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 95 in location 30\n"
);
}
:(before "Update INDEX base in Check")
if (!canonize_type(base)) break;
:(before "Update INDEX index in Check")
if (!canonize_type(index)) break;
:(before "Update INDEX product in Check")
if (!canonize_type(product)) break;
:(before "Update INDEX base in Run")
canonize(base);
:(before "Update INDEX index in Run")
canonize(index);
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
:(code)
void test_put_index_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:@:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 22:num <- copy 94\n"
" 23:num <- copy 95\n"
" 24:num <- copy 96\n"
" 10:&:@:num/lookup <- put-index 10:&:@:num/lookup, 1, 97\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 97 in location 23\n"
);
}
void test_put_index_indirect_2() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" 10:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 11:num <- copy 94\n"
" 12:num <- copy 95\n"
" 13:num <- copy 96\n"
// skip alloc id for address
" 21:num <- copy 30\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 31:num <- copy 1\n" // index
" 10:@:num <- put-index 10:@:num, 20:&:num/lookup, 97\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 97 in location 12\n"
);
}
void test_put_index_product_error_with_lookup() {
Hide_errors = true;
run(
"def main [\n"
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
" 21:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 22:num <- copy 94\n"
" 23:num <- copy 95\n"
" 24:num <- copy 96\n"
" 10:&:@:num <- put-index 10:&:@:num/lookup, 1, 34\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"error: main: product of 'put-index' must be first ingredient '10:&:@:num/lookup', but got '10:&:@:num'\n"
);
}
:(before "End PUT_INDEX Product Checks")
reagent/*copy*/ p = inst.products.at(0);
if (!canonize_type(p)) break; // error raised elsewhere
reagent/*copy*/ i = inst.ingredients.at(0);
if (!canonize_type(i)) break; // error raised elsewhere
if (!types_strictly_match(p, i)) {
raise << maybe(get(Recipe, r).name) << "product of 'put-index' must be first ingredient '" << inst.ingredients.at(0).original_string << "', but got '" << inst.products.at(0).original_string << "'\n" << end();
break;
}
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
:(code)
void test_dilated_reagent_in_static_array() {
run(
"def main [\n"
" {1: (array (& num) 3)} <- create-array\n"
" 10:&:num <- new num:type\n"
" {1: (array (& num) 3)} <- put-index {1: (array (& num) 3)}, 0, 10:&:num\n"
" *10:&:num <- copy 94\n"
" 20:num <- copy *10:&:num\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"run: creating array from 7 locations\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 20\n"
);
}
:(before "Update PUT_INDEX base in Check")
if (!canonize_type(base)) break;
:(before "Update PUT_INDEX index in Check")
if (!canonize_type(index)) break;
:(before "Update PUT_INDEX value in Check")
if (!canonize_type(value)) break;
:(before "Update PUT_INDEX base in Run")
canonize(base);
:(before "Update PUT_INDEX index in Run")
canonize(index);
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
:(code)
void test_length_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:@:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 3\n" // array length
" 22:num <- copy 94\n"
" 23:num <- copy 95\n"
" 24:num <- copy 96\n"
" 30:num <- length 10:&:array:num/lookup\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 3 in location 30\n"
);
}
:(before "Update LENGTH array in Check")
if (!canonize_type(array)) break;
:(before "Update LENGTH array in Run")
canonize(array);
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
:(code)
void test_maybe_convert_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:number-or-point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:number-or-point <- merge 0/number, 94\n"
" 30:num, 31:bool <- maybe-convert 10:&:number-or-point/lookup, i:variant\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 1 in location 31\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 30\n"
);
}
void test_maybe_convert_indirect_2() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:number-or-point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:number-or-point <- merge 0/number, 94\n"
// skip alloc id for 30:&:num
" 31:num <- copy 40\n"
" 30:&:num/lookup, 50:bool <- maybe-convert 10:&:number-or-point/lookup, i:variant\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 1 in location 50\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 41\n"
);
}
void test_maybe_convert_indirect_3() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:number-or-point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:number-or-point <- merge 0/number, 94\n"
// skip alloc id for 30:&:bool
" 31:num <- copy 40\n"
" 50:num, 30:&:bool/lookup <- maybe-convert 10:&:number-or-point/lookup, i:variant\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"mem: storing 1 in location 41\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 50\n"
);
}
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT base in Check")
if (!canonize_type(base)) break;
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT product in Check")
if (!canonize_type(product)) break;
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT status in Check")
if (!canonize_type(status)) break;
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT base in Run")
canonize(base);
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT product in Run")
canonize(product);
:(before "Update MAYBE_CONVERT status in Run")
canonize(status);
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
:(code)
void test_merge_exclusive_container_indirect() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:number-or-point
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
" 10:&:number-or-point/lookup <- merge 0/number, 34\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
// skip alloc id
"mem: storing 0 in location 21\n"
"mem: storing 34 in location 22\n"
);
}
:(before "Update size_mismatch Check for MERGE(x)
canonize(x);
//: abbreviation for '/lookup': a prefix '*'
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
:(code)
void test_lookup_abbreviation() {
run(
"def main [\n"
// skip alloc id for 10:&:num
" 11:num <- copy 20\n"
// skip alloc id for payload
" 21:num <- copy 94\n"
" 30:num <- copy *10:&:num\n"
"]\n"
);
CHECK_TRACE_CONTENTS(
"parse: ingredient: {10: (\"&\" \"num\"), \"lookup\": ()}\n"
"mem: storing 94 in location 30\n"
);
}
:(before "End Parsing reagent")
{
2016-09-12 01:07:29 +00:00
while (starts_with(name, "*")) {
name.erase(0, 1);
properties.push_back(pair<string, string_tree*>("lookup", NULL));
}
if (name.empty())
raise << "illegal name '" << original_string << "'\n" << end();
}
//:: helpers for debugging
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Declarations")
_DUMP,
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Numbers")
put(Recipe_ordinal, "$dump", _DUMP);
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Implementations")
case _DUMP: {
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
reagent/*copy*/ after_canonize = current_instruction().ingredients.at(0);
canonize(after_canonize);
cerr << maybe(current_recipe_name()) << current_instruction().ingredients.at(0).name << ' ' << no_scientific(current_instruction().ingredients.at(0).value) << " => " << no_scientific(after_canonize.value) << " => " << no_scientific(get_or_insert(Memory, after_canonize.value)) << '\n';
break;
}
//: grab an address, and then dump its value at intervals
//: useful for tracking down memory corruption (writing to an out-of-bounds address)
:(before "End Globals")
int Bar = -1;
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Declarations")
_BAR,
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Numbers")
put(Recipe_ordinal, "$bar", _BAR);
:(before "End Primitive Recipe Implementations")
case _BAR: {
if (current_instruction().ingredients.empty()) {
if (Bar != -1) cerr << Bar << ": " << no_scientific(get_or_insert(Memory, Bar)) << '\n';
else cerr << '\n';
}
else {
2016-05-06 07:46:39 +00:00
reagent/*copy*/ tmp = current_instruction().ingredients.at(0);
canonize(tmp);
Bar = tmp.value;
}
break;
}