They uncovered one bug: in edit/003-shortcuts.mu
<scroll-down> was returning 0 for an address in one place where I
thought it was returning 0 for a boolean.
Now we've eliminated this bad interaction between tangling and punning
literals.
Cleaning up the console interfaces before we start changing the socket
interfaces to look like them. Reading from sockets need to be
non-blocking just like reading from the console.
The solution for avoiding deadlock is for routines to close channels
before they exit. So that's good.
Once I implemented 'close', I also found and fixed 2 unrelated bugs in
chessboard.mu:
a) one long-missed and long-masked case of forgetting to store
character literals in character variables
b) one typo in translating get-address to put
So that's good.
What's not so good: in the process of fixing this I've found three
unrelated bugs (marked 'BUG:' in the changes). All three have
workarounds, so existing tests pass for now. But they are my top
priority next.
This way when you pass one end to a function or routine, you can
implicitly give it the right to either read or write the channel, but
not both.
The cost: code gets more convoluted, names get more convoluted. You can
see this in particular in the test for buffer-lines. Let's see how it
goes..
I'm dropping all mention of 'recipe' terminology from the Readme. That
way I hope to avoid further bike-shedding discussions while I very
slowly decide on the right terminology with my students.
I could be smarter in my error messages and use 'recipe' when code uses
it and 'function' otherwise. But what about other words like ingredient?
It would all add complexity that I'm not yet sure is worthwhile. But I
do want separate experiences for veteran programmers reading about Mu on
github and for people learning programming using Mu.
This is the one major refinement on the C programming model I'm planning
to introduce in mu. Instead of Rust's menagerie of pointer types and
static checking, I want to introduce just one new type, and use it to
perform ref-counting at runtime.
So far all we're doing is updating new's interface. The actual
ref-counting implementation is next.
One implication: I might sometimes need duplicate implementations for a
recipe with allocated vs vanilla addresses of the same type. So far it
seems I can get away with just always passing in allocated addresses;
the situations when you want to pass an unallocated address to a recipe
should be few and far between.
Kartik Agaram