Stop requiring jump instructions to explicitly provide a ':label' type
for jump targets.
This has been a source of repeated confusion for my students:
a) They'd add the ':label' to the label definition rather than the
jump target (label use)
b) They'd spend time thinking about whether the initial '+' prefix was
part of the label name.
In the process I cleaned up a couple of things:
- the space of names is more cleanly partitioned into labels and
non-labels (clarifying that '_' and '-' are non-label prefixes)
- you can't use label names as regular variables anymore
- you can infer the type of a label just from its name
Ugly that we didn't need 'screen' to provide a type in scenarios
(because assume-screen expands to a definition of 'screen') but we did
need a type for 'console'. Just never require types for special names in
scenarios.
A long-standing problem has been that I couldn't spread code across
'run' blocks because they were separate scopes, so I've ended up making
them effectively comments. Running code inside a 'run' block is
identical in every way to simply running the code directly. The 'run'
block is merely a visual aid to separate setup from the component under
test.
In the process I've also standardized all Mu scenarios to always run in
a local scope, and only use (raw) numeric addresses for values they want
to check later.
Well, almost. I can't use them in some places in C++ where I'm just
creating a temporary reagent without passing it through transforms. Like
in some unit tests. I can't use them in memory-should-contain.
And there's one remaining bug: I can't use abbreviations in a couple of
places in 075channel.mu.
Done using 'text' type abbreviation everywhere.
There's still a problem. If we define a function with a type
abbreviation and then redefine it without, I think we end up creating
separate variants. That seems wrong. Let's isolate a scenario for that
next.
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.
Still can't print non-integer numbers, so this is a bit hacky.
The big consequence is that you can't print literal characters anymore
because of our rules about how we pick which variant to statically
dispatch to. You have to save to a character variable first.
Maybe I can add an annotation to literals..
Not entirely happy with this. Maybe we'll find a better name. But at
least it's an improvement.
One part I *am* happy with is renaming string-replace to replace,
string-append to append, etc. Overdue, now that we have static dispatch.
