Since we switched to end() for terminating trace lines, there's a lot
less reason to avoid this. We don't nest trace statements either
anymore.
I'd like to not hide warnings and still be able to make assertions on
their absence so that printed warnings also express as failed tests.
Now we're back to trying to rerunning idempotent transforms on
specialized recipes. Still doesn't work, but at least we don't see
different results depending on whether the trace is enabled inside the
test or right at the start. That got fixed by the more disciplined
insertion into maps, looks like.
There were several places where we push a call on to a routine without
incrementing call-stack depth, which was used to compute the depth at
which to trace an instruction. So sometimes you ended up one depth lower
than you started a call with. Do this enough times and instructions that
should be traced at level 100 end up at level 0 and pop up as errors.
Solution: since call-stack depth is only used for tracing, include it in
the trace stream and make sure we reset it along with the trace stream.
Then catch all places where we forget to increment call-stack depth and
make sure we catch such places in the future.
When I first ran into this with Caleb I thought there must be some way
that we're writing some output into the warnings result. I didn't
recognize that the spurious output as part of the trace, just at the
wrong level.
At the lowest level I'm reluctantly starting to see the need for errors
that stop the program in its tracks. Only way to avoid memory corruption
and security issues. But beyond that core I still want to be as lenient
as possible at higher levels of abstraction.
It was reading lines like this in scenarios:
-warn: f: error error
as:
-warn: f
which was causing them to be silently ignored.
Also found an insane preprocessor expansion from not parenthesizing
preprocessor arguments. SIZE(end+delim) worked even when end was an
integer, but it happily didn't ever get the wrong answer.
Finally terminate the experiment of keeping debug prints around. I'm
also going to give up on maintaining counts.
What we really need is two kinds of tracing:
a) For tests, just the domain-specific facts, organized by labels.
b) For debugging, just transient dumps to stdout.
b) only works if stdout is clean by default.
Hmm, I think this means 'stash' should be the transient kind of trace.
Region to click on to edit is now reduced to just the menu bar for the
sandbox (excluding the 'x' for deleting the sandbox). The symmetry there
might be useful, but we'll see if the relative click area is
in line with how commonly the actions are performed.
More verbose, but it saves trouble when debugging; there's never
something you thought should be traced but just never came out the other
end.
Also got rid of fatal errors entirely. Everything's a warning now, and
code after a warning isn't guaranteed to run.
Speeds up edit.mu tests by 10x, and shrinks memory usage by 100x.
We need a more efficient implementation of traces, but we can keep going
for now.
We didn't really need to reclaim memory just yet, after all. Mu is
pretty memory-efficient.
Another bug in manually running the editor. At least show the error
message when you raise warnings in console mode.
Later we'll want to create a separate side channel and transparently
plumb warnings to the 'menu bar' of the editor..
I added one test to check that divide can return a float, then hacked at
the rippling failures across the entire entire codebase until all tests
pass. Now I need to look at the changes I made and see if there's a
system to them, identify other places that I missed, and figure out the
best way to cover all cases. I also need to show real rather than
encoded values in the traces, but I can't use value() inside reagent
methods because of the name clash with the member variable. So let's
take a snapshot before we attempt any refactoring. This was non-trivial
to get right.
Even if I convince myself that I've gotten it right, I might back this
all out if I can't easily *persuade others* that I've gotten it right.
Kartik K. Agaram