12.28: adde/per-file dialect preference directive:
. when opening another author's strange dialect,
[@] adda/pre-processor/per-file dialect preference directive:
the editor auto-translates to your dialect .
. and when you name an object,
the editor asks how you came up with that name,
so that translators across country`languages
can have some clues for a good native alternative .
2011-12-31
listable column view & tiled work trays
12.26: co.self/dream/adde/listable column view & tiled work trays:
. there are fixed layers for levels of the fs:
file, 3..5 folders levels for various intentions
[just like the biology has {species, genus, phylum, etc}]
. you see things arranged as columns,
[like mac`finder's column view,
but combined with the mac`finder [hierarchical] list view,
where more than one branch of the folder tree can be expanded]
then how do you arrange the rows to
keep files separate from folder systems ?
. have trays on the desktop,
corresponding to each of the columns;
they are easy for the user to rearrange, but they stay tiled;
and they have some way of stacking like mac has;
what way is that ? uh .
--[. I had done stim's just before bed;
because I was too stressed, and didn't want to be bored
in case there was insomnia;
I think I was half awake for this;
but it was dream-like in the sense of
the thought process being more concerned with
images of the ideas,
and not too quick to discount an idea as trivial or useless;
it does remind me that you can't really know
what users will find useless,
so the primary feature should be making it easy for
users themselves to design desktop behaviors .]
. there are fixed layers for levels of the fs:
file, 3..5 folders levels for various intentions
[just like the biology has {species, genus, phylum, etc}]
. you see things arranged as columns,
[like mac`finder's column view,
but combined with the mac`finder [hierarchical] list view,
where more than one branch of the folder tree can be expanded]
then how do you arrange the rows to
keep files separate from folder systems ?
. have trays on the desktop,
corresponding to each of the columns;
they are easy for the user to rearrange, but they stay tiled;
and they have some way of stacking like mac has;
what way is that ? uh .
--[. I had done stim's just before bed;
because I was too stressed, and didn't want to be bored
in case there was insomnia;
I think I was half awake for this;
but it was dream-like in the sense of
the thought process being more concerned with
images of the ideas,
and not too quick to discount an idea as trivial or useless;
it does remind me that you can't really know
what users will find useless,
so the primary feature should be making it easy for
users themselves to design desktop behaviors .]
encryption with shifting code
12.22: adde/encryption with shifting code:
. you have sections prefixed with the lang id
and the lang id is encrypted too .
how? if the lang code is not randomized or implicit
(eg, by a hash of the section's 1st words;
say, along with some other rule)
then opponents could work on common code sections
to see which words are most freequently used .
[and with implicit lang code, imagine that every word was encoded differently
so a word is in a file giving it an nth word location
and for each location's code there are 2 maps:
the word map: words -> code;
the map map: word location -> word map index .
. so for each word at location L,
my.word.map = [array of maps](map.map(L));
code = my.word.map (word) .]
. you have sections prefixed with the lang id
and the lang id is encrypted too .
how? if the lang code is not randomized or implicit
(eg, by a hash of the section's 1st words;
say, along with some other rule)
then opponents could work on common code sections
to see which words are most freequently used .
[and with implicit lang code, imagine that every word was encoded differently
so a word is in a file giving it an nth word location
and for each location's code there are 2 maps:
the word map: words -> code;
the map map: word location -> word map index .
. so for each word at location L,
my.word.map = [array of maps](map.map(L));
code = my.word.map (word) .]
taming the arrogant dialog
12.5: adde/gui/taming the arrogant dialog:
. one reason some dialogs will block any other actions
is to not lose your selection
or anything you've already input to the dialog .
. suppose the dialog were a separate window
and the selection in your document window changes,
then it needs to check selection;
and, if it changed, the user is asked
"(do you want to resume it?);
if the doc is modified, user is asked:
"(does new selection still fit your intention
for this old dialog?).
. sometimes the specific content of the original selection
will have determined the dialog type
(this is like a context menu selection by you,
only the app is doing it implicitely;
eg, if the selection contains both text and graphics,
then choosing style from the menu
should bring up dialogs for both text and graphics).
. if the document or the selection has changed,
then the dialog typing should be redone .
. if the dialog must be changed,
then the app must return the data by
logging* the parameter values provided by user
or also apply those changes to a
subsequent use of the dialog .
*: ( the entire user session is logged,
so that user's can know in writing what they did
that had the given effect; they can also use this writing
as part of developing scripts to automate their chores).
history stack traversal:
. it could just store modifications with the dialog,
and have a browser control with a back button
for earlier dialog fillings .
(warning:
. that works only in a protected acct with one user
otherwise that is a new behavior that could get very rude )
. this is a very important generalization:
html gui's can mean more service not less .
. one reason some dialogs will block any other actions
is to not lose your selection
or anything you've already input to the dialog .
. suppose the dialog were a separate window
and the selection in your document window changes,
then it needs to check selection;
and, if it changed, the user is asked
"(do you want to resume it?);
if the doc is modified, user is asked:
"(does new selection still fit your intention
for this old dialog?).
. sometimes the specific content of the original selection
will have determined the dialog type
(this is like a context menu selection by you,
only the app is doing it implicitely;
eg, if the selection contains both text and graphics,
then choosing style from the menu
should bring up dialogs for both text and graphics).
. if the document or the selection has changed,
then the dialog typing should be redone .
. if the dialog must be changed,
then the app must return the data by
logging* the parameter values provided by user
or also apply those changes to a
subsequent use of the dialog .
*: ( the entire user session is logged,
so that user's can know in writing what they did
that had the given effect; they can also use this writing
as part of developing scripts to automate their chores).
history stack traversal:
. it could just store modifications with the dialog,
and have a browser control with a back button
for earlier dialog fillings .
(warning:
. that works only in a protected acct with one user
otherwise that is a new behavior that could get very rude )
. this is a very important generalization:
html gui's can mean more service not less .
dual document view for speedy use of read-only
12.5: adde/gui/dual document view for speedy use of read-only:
. in order to be quick, the typical help system is read-only;
but friendly would be quick and annotatable .
. an editor can be made very lightweight
if it does only small chunks of simple text;
summary:
. this is possible by a windowing system that is
combining 2 documents:
the readonly panes load quickly despite being large;
the mutable panes load quickly because they are small .
. when you ok the pane, it saves that pane as a temp' file .
. deleting part of a readonly pane simply redraws the pane
without the part you deleted .
. after your annotation session,
it will merge results in the background .
idea#1:
. the annotation window is attached to the side
at a point that starts at finding current wrapped line
where the anchor phrase is found .
. finally, in the background,
the edits are merged with the doc .
idea#2:
. another view of a faster edit system
is that old text is never modified,
it is simply interleaved with panes of new text,
deletions have their before&after's
presented in the same read-only pane,
but the drawing is simply skipping the deleted range;
this may seem like a complication,
but no more so than having to
draw segments in separate panes .
. if the text is not word wrapped, (has frequent newlines)
then it should do a heuristic about whether
the after-piece should be on a new line
or the same line with the before-piece .
. for transitioning from rom text to mutable text,
there should be separate panes
to speed up the layout engine .
. within a read-only doc, after making selection,
you can do 3 things:
add your comment { above, below} it,
or replace it .
. in order to be quick, the typical help system is read-only;
but friendly would be quick and annotatable .
. an editor can be made very lightweight
if it does only small chunks of simple text;
summary:
. this is possible by a windowing system that is
combining 2 documents:
the readonly panes load quickly despite being large;
the mutable panes load quickly because they are small .
. when you ok the pane, it saves that pane as a temp' file .
. deleting part of a readonly pane simply redraws the pane
without the part you deleted .
. after your annotation session,
it will merge results in the background .
idea#1:
. the annotation window is attached to the side
at a point that starts at finding current wrapped line
where the anchor phrase is found .
. finally, in the background,
the edits are merged with the doc .
idea#2:
. another view of a faster edit system
is that old text is never modified,
it is simply interleaved with panes of new text,
deletions have their before&after's
presented in the same read-only pane,
but the drawing is simply skipping the deleted range;
this may seem like a complication,
but no more so than having to
draw segments in separate panes .
. if the text is not word wrapped, (has frequent newlines)
then it should do a heuristic about whether
the after-piece should be on a new line
or the same line with the before-piece .
. for transitioning from rom text to mutable text,
there should be separate panes
to speed up the layout engine .
. within a read-only doc, after making selection,
you can do 3 things:
add your comment { above, below} it,
or replace it .
1st-class subfile renaming
12.4: news.adde/fs/1st-class subfile renaming:
. Brandon Casey June 20th, 2007,
mentioned the idea of 1st-class subfile renamingwhich is a version tracking system that recognizes
when file modifications consist of subfile moves:
"( I split the file into two files in my repo.
File is modified in source repo.
I retrieve changes from source repo.
Will changes be correctly applied to
relevant sections in the two new files?
).
. Casey was responding to an article about
www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/123
tracking renames as a first class operation,
which I would call 1st-class file renaming;
so, Casey's idea is 1st-class subfile renaming .
. the minimalist style of version tracking
is to wait for a commit,
and then respond to modifications:
# directory changes are seen as
file {adds, deletes};
# file modifications are recorded with a
line-oriented diff' file .
. in previous notes on subfiles,
the system recognizes structure within files:
eg, html files have header tags, H1, H2, ... H6;
and, each represents a hierarchical subfile,
as do paragraphs, divisions, and other enclosing tags .
. the file system is just a tree of pointers;
likewise, this tree extends to subfiles;
and files become pointers to sections of text
which are actually in a database
named by their creation date & author
(plus an optional serial# for when
several subfiles have the same create date;
for example when a file is modified by
having some paragraphs inserted,
the paragraphs' create dates are considered to be
at the file's modified time .
).
. the branch copies db names
and each simultanious branch belings to one author;
so, that author'name must be part of a subfile's db name .
1st-class subfile renaming:
. the folder-subfile system is a tree:
a collection of nodes
(visualized as forks for representing enclosures )
and edges
(visualized as branches for representing
the things they contained by an enclosure ).
. a folder-representing node is thus remembering
# the name of the folder,
# edges to all nodes the folder contains;
likewise, a file-representing node has the file's name,
and the edges to subfiles it contains;
but, a paragraph-representing node
has a position number in place of a name
( so, when a paragraph gets inserted,
that bumps all the position numbers of paragraphs below
(within that subfile not the entire file)).
. when version-tracking for subfiles,
the nodes that were revised
are replaced with version-representing nodes
(version node) with edges to
both the replaced node,
and to the new node created by the revision;
in summary,
modified nodes are presented as a menu
of version choices;
eg, a folder-move creates version nodes twice:
once at both the source and destination nodes .
12.5:
. what if the version node is not the smartest
way to see changes?
the friendliest way is to show the various views:
# toc's for each version:
when there a high use of 2 views,
make sure both are fully built (not defined as a script)
the db will then be like a book with 2 toc's (table of contents).
# index:
. search of index finds every instance
showing you the pathnames,
and grouping together occurrences of
1 object is in several locations across versions .
# glossary:
. the place for histories of how a name has been used,
and why it has been changed from and to other names .
. this would include the human view of
why there systematic renames in certain versions .
. Brandon Casey June 20th, 2007,
mentioned the idea of 1st-class subfile renamingwhich is a version tracking system that recognizes
when file modifications consist of subfile moves:
"( I split the file into two files in my repo.
File is modified in source repo.
I retrieve changes from source repo.
Will changes be correctly applied to
relevant sections in the two new files?
).
. Casey was responding to an article about
www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/123
tracking renames as a first class operation,
which I would call 1st-class file renaming;
so, Casey's idea is 1st-class subfile renaming .
. the minimalist style of version tracking
is to wait for a commit,
and then respond to modifications:
# directory changes are seen as
file {adds, deletes};
# file modifications are recorded with a
line-oriented diff' file .
. in previous notes on subfiles,
the system recognizes structure within files:
eg, html files have header tags, H1, H2, ... H6;
and, each represents a hierarchical subfile,
as do paragraphs, divisions, and other enclosing tags .
. the file system is just a tree of pointers;
likewise, this tree extends to subfiles;
and files become pointers to sections of text
which are actually in a database
named by their creation date & author
(plus an optional serial# for when
several subfiles have the same create date;
for example when a file is modified by
having some paragraphs inserted,
the paragraphs' create dates are considered to be
at the file's modified time .
).
. the branch copies db names
and each simultanious branch belings to one author;
so, that author'name must be part of a subfile's db name .
1st-class subfile renaming:
. the folder-subfile system is a tree:
a collection of nodes
(visualized as forks for representing enclosures )
and edges
(visualized as branches for representing
the things they contained by an enclosure ).
. a folder-representing node is thus remembering
# the name of the folder,
# edges to all nodes the folder contains;
likewise, a file-representing node has the file's name,
and the edges to subfiles it contains;
but, a paragraph-representing node
has a position number in place of a name
( so, when a paragraph gets inserted,
that bumps all the position numbers of paragraphs below
(within that subfile not the entire file)).
. when version-tracking for subfiles,
the nodes that were revised
are replaced with version-representing nodes
(version node) with edges to
both the replaced node,
and to the new node created by the revision;
in summary,
modified nodes are presented as a menu
of version choices;
eg, a folder-move creates version nodes twice:
once at both the source and destination nodes .
12.5:
. what if the version node is not the smartest
way to see changes?
the friendliest way is to show the various views:
# toc's for each version:
when there a high use of 2 views,
make sure both are fully built (not defined as a script)
the db will then be like a book with 2 toc's (table of contents).
# index:
. search of index finds every instance
showing you the pathnames,
and grouping together occurrences of
1 object is in several locations across versions .
# glossary:
. the place for histories of how a name has been used,
and why it has been changed from and to other names .
. this would include the human view of
why there systematic renames in certain versions .
optimizing timemachine
12.4: adde/fs/optimizing timemachine:
. mac's timemachine can prevent corruptions;
adde's version of that could additionally preserve memory
(and thereby store more changes)
by analyzing how things change,
and asking the user why something got deleted .
--
. the inspiration for this idea was that
my data had be corrupted by a fat32 sd card error;
and although timemachine did save me,
all I really needed was
some automatic analyst to notice strange behavior:
the user fills up log entries,
but here one has been deleted ?
a folder had many files but is now null ?
12.5:
. the prior, simpler idea that helps as much
is to keep all user contributions in a read-only db,
and saving memory by automatic duplicate removal
(a file can saved as a script such as:
include these 3 subfiles,
and then replace phrase x with y ).
. adde questions the user upon each deletion:
why is this deleted?
# somewhere else: deleted when verified;
# not yours : did you want to log this? source?
# duplication:
adde has automatic duplicate removal .
. mac's timemachine can prevent corruptions;
adde's version of that could additionally preserve memory
(and thereby store more changes)
by analyzing how things change,
and asking the user why something got deleted .
--
. the inspiration for this idea was that
my data had be corrupted by a fat32 sd card error;
and although timemachine did save me,
all I really needed was
some automatic analyst to notice strange behavior:
the user fills up log entries,
but here one has been deleted ?
a folder had many files but is now null ?
12.5:
. the prior, simpler idea that helps as much
is to keep all user contributions in a read-only db,
and saving memory by automatic duplicate removal
(a file can saved as a script such as:
include these 3 subfiles,
and then replace phrase x with y ).
. adde questions the user upon each deletion:
why is this deleted?
# somewhere else: deleted when verified;
# not yours : did you want to log this? source?
# duplication:
adde has automatic duplicate removal .
transaction-based software configuration mgt system
12.4: news.adde/transaction-based software configuration management system:
Wheeler`Software Configuration Management (SCM) Security
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/propaganda/security.html
Once authenticated, users do not have write access to the
meta-data or history files of any change set.
The vast majority of "hooks" are in files controlled by Aegis' process;
to maliciously change one requires a conspiracy of
developer, reviewer and integrator.
Aegis is a transaction-based software configuration management system.
pdf"proj change supervisor
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug93.pdf
pd"only for software?
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug96.pdf
It provides a framework within which a team of developers
may work on many changes to a program independently,
and Aegis coordinates integrating these changes
back into the master source of the program,
with as little disruption as possible.
. more from same author: peter miller .
[@] news,web.adds/openware/peter miller
--
. that reminded me how my logging is helped by a 2-step process:
. one process just adds stuff,
and then another (in a sharp state)
is doing reorganizations, and deletions .
. adde could help by enforcing this:
# the editor-mode user makes only requests
that are virtually filled;
# the reviewer-mode user can fill requests
that do the work, and save the space taken by
holding both the before and after states .
Wheeler`Software Configuration Management (SCM) Security
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/propaganda/security.html
Once authenticated, users do not have write access to the
meta-data or history files of any change set.
The vast majority of "hooks" are in files controlled by Aegis' process;
to maliciously change one requires a conspiracy of
developer, reviewer and integrator.
Aegis is a transaction-based software configuration management system.
pdf"proj change supervisor
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug93.pdf
pd"only for software?
http://aegis.sourceforge.net/auug96.pdf
It provides a framework within which a team of developers
may work on many changes to a program independently,
and Aegis coordinates integrating these changes
back into the master source of the program,
with as little disruption as possible.
. more from same author: peter miller .
[@] news,web.adds/openware/peter miller
--
. that reminded me how my logging is helped by a 2-step process:
. one process just adds stuff,
and then another (in a sharp state)
is doing reorganizations, and deletions .
. adde could help by enforcing this:
# the editor-mode user makes only requests
that are virtually filled;
# the reviewer-mode user can fill requests
that do the work, and save the space taken by
holding both the before and after states .
rule of contract vs right to perfect memory
12.1: adde/rule of contract vs right to perfect memory:
. the rule of contract states that the most important law
is the games people agree to play by;
eg, whether or not close-source is right,
if the user and producer can both agree to it,
then it should be supported .
. although the rule of contract is important,
it often concerns content use restrictions
that conflict with an even more important right:
pursuit of a perfect mind with a perfect memory;
because, being able to remember every experience
entails copying content for replay to yourself;
but, copying content under current systems,
always implies the ability to distribute it to others .
. to facilitate the right to perfect memory,
and system must be able to provide replay
only to those who already seen the playback .
. it must have encrypted files for such memories,
which the own can't unencrypt .
. this would also require a system for insuring
that there was no copying processes
between crypt and display .
. the openware community has had concerns about
something called a trusted platform chip
that it would reduce control ?
. can't recall the details, but we can avoid that;
simply imagine a system where it's like it is now,
but there's a overlayed subsytem
where if encryption is being displayed
only at this time is no other process
allowed to scrape the video ram .
. the rule of contract states that the most important law
is the games people agree to play by;
eg, whether or not close-source is right,
if the user and producer can both agree to it,
then it should be supported .
. although the rule of contract is important,
it often concerns content use restrictions
that conflict with an even more important right:
pursuit of a perfect mind with a perfect memory;
because, being able to remember every experience
entails copying content for replay to yourself;
but, copying content under current systems,
always implies the ability to distribute it to others .
. to facilitate the right to perfect memory,
and system must be able to provide replay
only to those who already seen the playback .
. it must have encrypted files for such memories,
which the own can't unencrypt .
. this would also require a system for insuring
that there was no copying processes
between crypt and display .
. the openware community has had concerns about
something called a trusted platform chip
that it would reduce control ?
. can't recall the details, but we can avoid that;
simply imagine a system where it's like it is now,
but there's a overlayed subsytem
where if encryption is being displayed
only at this time is no other process
allowed to scrape the video ram .
short pointer
12.22: adda/type/short pointer:
pos: kiss:
. build the obvious system first;
don't worry about having to
rebuild from scratch in order to merge an optimization;
it's important for testing that there are
simple, trustworthy substitutes .
summary:
. shorter pointers could save a lot of space;
in c, pointers may be 4-bytes long
in order to address any place on the machine .
. addresses can be byte-sized only if needing
less than 256 addresses; for instance,
an array(1..256)of word can hold 256 tree nodes;
and, each node has 2 bytes,
each of which can point to any place in that array .
. a larger tree would use word-sized pointers,
which means the nodes are 4bytes long
(2pointers * 2bytes).
. the byte- and word-sized addresses
use an array index to do the pointing;
and, are collectively called short pointers;
any use of a short pointer implies a reference to
some particular array;
eg, the root of a tree would be a descriptor
which identifies the tree as using short pointers
and then provides a link to the array being referred to .
. a tree descriptor would also include
a separate array for data;
because, arrays need to contain just one type
(unless its items all have bulky type tags);
and, while all internal tree nodes
are of type (ptr, ptr),
the leaf nodes contain data of varying sizes and types;
so, the data array might contain system pointers;
or, it could use a heap system,
where the pointer refers to several items:
the first item contains a size field
which indicates how many subsequent items
belong to this datum .
. large trees (uses word-pointers)
may contain small trees (uses byte-pointers);
any subtree of a large tree containing less than 256 nodes
could be repacked as a pointer to small tree .
. as the list processor goes into a tree,
it is always keeping the current base addresses
for both the large tree and any small tree .
. a large tree is chosen over a small tree type
not only when it will always be large,
but also when it is likely to grow .
. often it will never approach its max size;
therefore the array being used for the
internal nodes of a large tree
should have a growable size to conserve space .
. one way of being growable is to be
an array of pointers to segments:
eg, suppose the segment is 10 units;
then for item# 78,
follow the 7th pointer to a segment,
and use the 8th item on that segment .
. in practice,
the segments likely should be the size of small trees
( 256 nodes * 2pointers * 1 byte).
. while the large tree is indexing the seg'd array,
a small subtree could index a segment therein .
[12.23:
. since the short pointers of a large tree are
pointing at a seg' pointer,
seg's could vary in type, and be type-tagged,
that way the large tree can point directly at a small tree
without having to redirect to a data array .
. the large tree is an array of
( pointer to seg
, enum"seg nodes are {word, long}
)].
. both the large tree (word-pointers)
and the small tree (byte-pointers)
can have a bit per word to indicate
whether they point to tree or data .
. word-sized pointers use their sign bit for indicating
whether they point to tree or data;
byte-sized pointers exist in pairs on word-sized nodes,
and a byte is too small to sacrifice a bit,
so we'll divide the segment in half;*
if the positive side is used (a byte in 0..127)
that item is an internal node;
else (a byte in 128..255) the item is a leaf node .
*(conveniently, no matter what the shape of a tree,
the number of internal and leaf nodes is nearly the same:
#leaf = #internal + 1 )
A binary tree with N internal nodes has exactly N+1 external (leaf) nodes
Proof: by induction
Base case:
a binary tree with 0 internal nodes has exactly 1 external (leaf) node (root)
Induction step:
. assume a binary tree with m internal nodes
has exactly m+1 external (leaf) nodes
A binary tree with N internal nodes is made up of:
A root (internal node)
A left binary trees with k internal nodes
A right binary trees with (N - 1 - k) internal nodes
According to the induction assumption:
The left binary trees with k internal nodes has exactly
k+1 external nodes
The right binary trees with (N - 1 - k) internal nodes
has exactly (N - k) external nodes
So the total number of external nodes
in a binary tree with N internal nodes is:
k+1 + (N - k) = (N + 1 ) external nodes .
notes:
binary operation polymorphism:
. tree polymorphism works the same way numbers do:
if a biop has to deal with (byte, word),
it converts byte to word for the (word, word) vm;
ie, it makes a copy of the tree but with new pointer types .
. by making small arrays part of larger ones
you would be doing more of your own mem mgt
instead of using c mem mgt
which expects you to de/allocate in stack order;
use c mem mgt for arrays whenever possible;
but use small arrays for tree nodes
to keep tree-pointer size down .
. the segs of a seg'd array
can either come from malloc,
or be pointers into a reserve array
where you're doing your own mem mgt .
. the small tree needs arrays of size = word*256
-- that may be the right size for units used by seg'd arrays .
. of the pointer and its target,
which should contain needed subtype tags?
if the target contains the id,
then there is efficient aliasing;
but in some targets there would be bloat
because targets like system pointers need the whole obj,
and can't spare a few bits for type tagging,
so then an additional array of byte for tagging is needed .
pos: kiss:
. build the obvious system first;
don't worry about having to
rebuild from scratch in order to merge an optimization;
it's important for testing that there are
simple, trustworthy substitutes .
summary:
. shorter pointers could save a lot of space;
in c, pointers may be 4-bytes long
in order to address any place on the machine .
. addresses can be byte-sized only if needing
less than 256 addresses; for instance,
an array(1..256)of word can hold 256 tree nodes;
and, each node has 2 bytes,
each of which can point to any place in that array .
. a larger tree would use word-sized pointers,
which means the nodes are 4bytes long
(2pointers * 2bytes).
. the byte- and word-sized addresses
use an array index to do the pointing;
and, are collectively called short pointers;
any use of a short pointer implies a reference to
some particular array;
eg, the root of a tree would be a descriptor
which identifies the tree as using short pointers
and then provides a link to the array being referred to .
. a tree descriptor would also include
a separate array for data;
because, arrays need to contain just one type
(unless its items all have bulky type tags);
and, while all internal tree nodes
are of type (ptr, ptr),
the leaf nodes contain data of varying sizes and types;
so, the data array might contain system pointers;
or, it could use a heap system,
where the pointer refers to several items:
the first item contains a size field
which indicates how many subsequent items
belong to this datum .
. large trees (uses word-pointers)
may contain small trees (uses byte-pointers);
any subtree of a large tree containing less than 256 nodes
could be repacked as a pointer to small tree .
. as the list processor goes into a tree,
it is always keeping the current base addresses
for both the large tree and any small tree .
. a large tree is chosen over a small tree type
not only when it will always be large,
but also when it is likely to grow .
. often it will never approach its max size;
therefore the array being used for the
internal nodes of a large tree
should have a growable size to conserve space .
. one way of being growable is to be
an array of pointers to segments:
eg, suppose the segment is 10 units;
then for item# 78,
follow the 7th pointer to a segment,
and use the 8th item on that segment .
. in practice,
the segments likely should be the size of small trees
( 256 nodes * 2pointers * 1 byte).
. while the large tree is indexing the seg'd array,
a small subtree could index a segment therein .
[12.23:
. since the short pointers of a large tree are
pointing at a seg' pointer,
seg's could vary in type, and be type-tagged,
that way the large tree can point directly at a small tree
without having to redirect to a data array .
. the large tree is an array of
( pointer to seg
, enum"seg nodes are {word, long}
)].
. both the large tree (word-pointers)
and the small tree (byte-pointers)
can have a bit per word to indicate
whether they point to tree or data .
. word-sized pointers use their sign bit for indicating
whether they point to tree or data;
byte-sized pointers exist in pairs on word-sized nodes,
and a byte is too small to sacrifice a bit,
so we'll divide the segment in half;*
if the positive side is used (a byte in 0..127)
that item is an internal node;
else (a byte in 128..255) the item is a leaf node .
*(conveniently, no matter what the shape of a tree,
the number of internal and leaf nodes is nearly the same:
#leaf = #internal + 1 )
A binary tree with N internal nodes has exactly N+1 external (leaf) nodes
Proof: by induction
Base case:
a binary tree with 0 internal nodes has exactly 1 external (leaf) node (root)
Induction step:
. assume a binary tree with m internal nodes
has exactly m+1 external (leaf) nodes
A binary tree with N internal nodes is made up of:
A root (internal node)
A left binary trees with k internal nodes
A right binary trees with (N - 1 - k) internal nodes
According to the induction assumption:
The left binary trees with k internal nodes has exactly
k+1 external nodes
The right binary trees with (N - 1 - k) internal nodes
has exactly (N - k) external nodes
So the total number of external nodes
in a binary tree with N internal nodes is:
k+1 + (N - k) = (N + 1 ) external nodes .
notes:
binary operation polymorphism:
. tree polymorphism works the same way numbers do:
if a biop has to deal with (byte, word),
it converts byte to word for the (word, word) vm;
ie, it makes a copy of the tree but with new pointer types .
. by making small arrays part of larger ones
you would be doing more of your own mem mgt
instead of using c mem mgt
which expects you to de/allocate in stack order;
use c mem mgt for arrays whenever possible;
but use small arrays for tree nodes
to keep tree-pointer size down .
. the segs of a seg'd array
can either come from malloc,
or be pointers into a reserve array
where you're doing your own mem mgt .
. the small tree needs arrays of size = word*256
-- that may be the right size for units used by seg'd arrays .
. of the pointer and its target,
which should contain needed subtype tags?
if the target contains the id,
then there is efficient aliasing;
but in some targets there would be bloat
because targets like system pointers need the whole obj,
and can't spare a few bits for type tagging,
so then an additional array of byte for tagging is needed .
abi - c's definition of abi differs
12.22: mis.adda/abi/c's definition of abi differs:
. in c culture, the abi(app binary interface)
has meant an interface between apps and
binary library units vs source libraries .
. my definition of ABI has been a system of
cross-app communication using a binary language
rather than a exchanging text like unix .
. for instance, see standard ABIs motivation:
"( the editor and every command processor
will all speak the system language:
the system's language describes
a mathematical function
as either a set of points or a formula
along with a type specification that includes
a domain and codomain;
with an optional subdomain and inverse operator ).
. in c culture, the abi(app binary interface)
has meant an interface between apps and
binary library units vs source libraries .
. my definition of ABI has been a system of
cross-app communication using a binary language
rather than a exchanging text like unix .
. for instance, see standard ABIs motivation:
"( the editor and every command processor
will all speak the system language:
the system's language describes
a mathematical function
as either a set of points or a formula
along with a type specification that includes
a domain and codomain;
with an optional subdomain and inverse operator ).
capitalization rules are out
12.14: pos.adda/capitalization rules are out:
. did you notice the capitalization on colors?
blue is not capitalized is it?,
but certain shades of blue might be?
. I confused because I'm sure
days of the week are capitalized,
and I see no difference between
energy bands for colors,
and time bands across each week .
. well, anyway, don't bother expecting
types in adda to be capitalized;
that would just be more confusing, not less .
web.engl/capitalization rules:
concerning colors:
. are colors supposed to be capitalized ?
yes, no, no, and no .
colors vs days of week:
. most are named after roman or greek gods
eg, Friday--Freyas Day,
so they kept the capital letter.
. time sections start with a capital letter
in English, and German, but not in French or Spanish .
. wiki has a list of international capitalization variations;
eg, the english seem to have retained the rules of Latin .
. did you notice the capitalization on colors?
blue is not capitalized is it?,
but certain shades of blue might be?
. I confused because I'm sure
days of the week are capitalized,
and I see no difference between
energy bands for colors,
and time bands across each week .
. well, anyway, don't bother expecting
types in adda to be capitalized;
that would just be more confusing, not less .
web.engl/capitalization rules:
concerning colors:
. are colors supposed to be capitalized ?
yes, no, no, and no .
colors vs days of week:
. most are named after roman or greek gods
eg, Friday--Freyas Day,
so they kept the capital letter.
. time sections start with a capital letter
in English, and German, but not in French or Spanish .
. wiki has a list of international capitalization variations;
eg, the english seem to have retained the rules of Latin .
(is) vs (=)
12.14: adda/(is) vs (=):
. math is a lang centered around var's,
whereas english's (is) would have to be explicit about
a var being involved;
so, for math's x=c, where c is some constant,
english might say "( x's current value is c ).
. math is a lang centered around var's,
whereas english's (is) would have to be explicit about
a var being involved;
so, for math's x=c, where c is some constant,
english might say "( x's current value is c ).
librarians that do Make
12.14: co.self/dream/adda/librarians that do Make:
. in a compiler system, the info managed by the Make file,
can instead by generated by the library;
the info to be gathered by the linker
includes the hashes of everything that is linked
(so it knows when anything has been modified)
and a database of which wares are required each other;
it is builing a requires-list for
each piece that got linked to anything ...
[. upon waking,
I started looking around for how usable that was;
actually, a hash of each module is not the only thing you want;
because, if an impl' has changed but its interface has not,
then the libary should not need to recompile it .
because it's still promising to serve the same interface as before .
1118:
. however, you would want to do re-apply
any unit testing scripts,
and then passing that would also trigger
any related integration testing scripts .]
12.14: adda/librarians that do Make:
. as the compiler is generating binaries from text,
the Make file is the place for describing dependencies;
so then, if a dependency can be checked for freshness:
if the source text in newer than the binary,
then it needs to be recompiled .
. if the inteface is newer than the binary,
then all clients need to be recompiled .
. we routinely reuse binaries from others;
(most people are users, not developers)
and, so, for a compiler to be doing
Make file duties,
it needs to be exchanging Make info
with other compilers .
. to know if an import is serving a particular interface
it actually needs a text or symbolic version of that interface
which needs to resove to the same typenames,
or optionally to any similar datatype,
depending on whether the given type describes itself as
new
where it simply uses other types for implementing its model,
it doesn't expect to be seen as a synonym for the type it used .
. the ada lang allows both new types and reuse of types;
ie, a new type means you have an impl reusing an old type
but you don't want to be seen as being compatable with the old type,
you want to be compat only to your name
or at least only to the interface your name represents .
. eg,
a character string may be impl'd as a c string, or a safe string,
but both are serving the same model, type"string;
whereas, gasoline tank may be an integer modeling volume,
but it doesn't want to be confused with other integers,
nor operated on by just anything that can modify integers .
. we have ideas for features addx should have,
make sure to separate that from how features should be impl'd .
. if there's a new version with a fix from an exporter,
your librarian needs to accept it
but if it's accepting c or python code,
then user needs to be informed that the system is less secure
if they go ahead with reuse by non-adda coders .
(the reason you're safe with adda code,
is that it's compiled by adda, a trusted app
-- unless your machine's os has been
compromised by malware --
adda code has been translated into python or c,
which can be trusted as much python's core library,
and your own os (that depends on
your own security policy:
do you run your browser in a vm?
keep your os updated?
know where your usb drives have been? ...)
sync's:
. the model that the librarian needs to have in order to
accept imports,
is to accept sync's with other librarians
and then synchs download interfaces of sharables
so your librarian can list them when you've asked what's available .
. if you do use an external,
it downloads the associated body,
the list shows too where your names conflict .
. it doesn't require you to rename conflicts because
all listings are qualified by the exporting librarian's name,
except for the entries of the local librarian .
. the user's rename can make an export appear to be local,
while yet being maintained by an exporter .
. local librarian is thus a language translator,
having a separate set of names for {user, other librarians}.
12.14: todo.adda/unify sync'd librarians with version control systems:
. the need to unify sync'd librarians
has to do with version control systems .
. in a compiler system, the info managed by the Make file,
can instead by generated by the library;
the info to be gathered by the linker
includes the hashes of everything that is linked
(so it knows when anything has been modified)
and a database of which wares are required each other;
it is builing a requires-list for
each piece that got linked to anything ...
[. upon waking,
I started looking around for how usable that was;
actually, a hash of each module is not the only thing you want;
because, if an impl' has changed but its interface has not,
then the libary should not need to recompile it .
because it's still promising to serve the same interface as before .
1118:
. however, you would want to do re-apply
any unit testing scripts,
and then passing that would also trigger
any related integration testing scripts .]
12.14: adda/librarians that do Make:
. as the compiler is generating binaries from text,
the Make file is the place for describing dependencies;
so then, if a dependency can be checked for freshness:
if the source text in newer than the binary,
then it needs to be recompiled .
. if the inteface is newer than the binary,
then all clients need to be recompiled .
. we routinely reuse binaries from others;
(most people are users, not developers)
and, so, for a compiler to be doing
Make file duties,
it needs to be exchanging Make info
with other compilers .
. to know if an import is serving a particular interface
it actually needs a text or symbolic version of that interface
which needs to resove to the same typenames,
or optionally to any similar datatype,
depending on whether the given type describes itself as
new
where it simply uses other types for implementing its model,
it doesn't expect to be seen as a synonym for the type it used .
. the ada lang allows both new types and reuse of types;
ie, a new type means you have an impl reusing an old type
but you don't want to be seen as being compatable with the old type,
you want to be compat only to your name
or at least only to the interface your name represents .
. eg,
a character string may be impl'd as a c string, or a safe string,
but both are serving the same model, type"string;
whereas, gasoline tank may be an integer modeling volume,
but it doesn't want to be confused with other integers,
nor operated on by just anything that can modify integers .
. we have ideas for features addx should have,
make sure to separate that from how features should be impl'd .
. if there's a new version with a fix from an exporter,
your librarian needs to accept it
but if it's accepting c or python code,
then user needs to be informed that the system is less secure
if they go ahead with reuse by non-adda coders .
(the reason you're safe with adda code,
is that it's compiled by adda, a trusted app
-- unless your machine's os has been
compromised by malware --
adda code has been translated into python or c,
which can be trusted as much python's core library,
and your own os (that depends on
your own security policy:
do you run your browser in a vm?
keep your os updated?
know where your usb drives have been? ...)
sync's:
. the model that the librarian needs to have in order to
accept imports,
is to accept sync's with other librarians
and then synchs download interfaces of sharables
so your librarian can list them when you've asked what's available .
. if you do use an external,
it downloads the associated body,
the list shows too where your names conflict .
. it doesn't require you to rename conflicts because
all listings are qualified by the exporting librarian's name,
except for the entries of the local librarian .
. the user's rename can make an export appear to be local,
while yet being maintained by an exporter .
. local librarian is thus a language translator,
having a separate set of names for {user, other librarians}.
12.14: todo.adda/unify sync'd librarians with version control systems:
. the need to unify sync'd librarians
has to do with version control systems .
passing destination references implicitely
12.9: adda/translate/passing destination references implicitely:
. by passing destination locations as references
instead of having functions return objects,
we can avoid a lot of garbage generation,
but the reason oop doesn't do this is it complicates the job of
application programmers .
. the reason addx does do this, is it has a translator
that does this automatically for programmers:
the compiler is looking for their y`= f(x)
and converting it for them into f-proc(&y, x).
. I think I had a contradictory example somewhere,
but it only applies to when the library programmer is
wanting to do systems programming (when it extends the compiler).
. by passing destination locations as references
instead of having functions return objects,
we can avoid a lot of garbage generation,
but the reason oop doesn't do this is it complicates the job of
application programmers .
. the reason addx does do this, is it has a translator
that does this automatically for programmers:
the compiler is looking for their y`= f(x)
and converting it for them into f-proc(&y, x).
. I think I had a contradictory example somewhere,
but it only applies to when the library programmer is
wanting to do systems programming (when it extends the compiler).
else-if statement's syntax
12.10: adda/cstr/else-if:
. here is the if-else syntax:
t?
( c1: s1
, c2: s2
, else: s3
) .
if I add an elsif to the structure, how does that fit in ?;
actually, with the use of (?) instead of (if)
there's maximum brevity without using a
contraction of [else if] .
. using that case-style syntax, it'd look like this:
t1 ? ( s1
, else: t2 ? (s3
, else: t4 ? (s5
, else: s6 ))).
. using truth-style syntax, it looks normal:
t1 ? s1
else t2 ? s3
else t4 ? s5
else s6 .
-- neat, but since (if) doesn't have a terminator
(like ada's endif,
any nested if-else's have to be parenthesized
as do any statement sequences:
t1 ?
s1
else t2 ?
(t1 ? s1 else t2 ? s3 else t4 ? s5 else s6 )
else t4 ?
(s1; s2)
else
s6 .
[if vs ?]:
. if you'd rather use if's, then (t?) is generally
replaceable with (if t:); ie,
the (:) is acting as a terminator like the (?) does .
mis:
. at first I was seeing it as a case stmt
with more than one case possible
the thing need to be ordered
reminds of using (;) instead of (,)
as is structuring arrays into matrices .
even if I could make the matrix pattern fit,
I'm not sure a tired or new programmer could
keep a working knowledge of it .
sci:
. notice that since both of (if)'s args are required,
then you could also separate them with a space
like lisp does; in that case,
you'd be detecting the condition where
the next token in the 2nd arg has to be an infix
but instead you found a non-infix;
however, that wouldn't work in my current syntax,
because infix's can also serve as prefix's;
so the (if)'s arg's do need a separator,
and a natural for that situation is the colon .
then again:
. you could also tell that the (if)'s 2nd arg began
because the next infix you were expecting
would have to be a truth-operator, ie:
{ or, and; nor, nand,
<=>, -- x is/not equivalent to y ( is also called xor, exclusive-or),
=>, =/> -- x does/not imply y,
<=, }
another prequisite:
. the other problem with not using the colon,
is that you can no longer have overloading;
you'd have to reserve the logical operators;
and while it does add unnecessarily to bureaucracy,
it would aid considerably to readability .
nevertheless:
. speaking of readability, use of the separator would
make it easy for humans to quickly parse;
and while adda should let writers skip the separator,
it should provide the readers the option of viewing it;
ie, it would be part of the
full vs minimized punctuation theme .
the deal breaker:
. finally, an insurmountable problem is one of
users adding more binary logic operators,
or similar functions of the form:
(truth, other-type)->truth .
. they should be able to do that,
so, you'd also have to make a general rule about
no overloading of such,
and that would be too much bureacracy
for the sake of merely simplifying (if)'s .
list of truth-operators:
. here is a table of possible combinations on 2 variables, x,y;
and the operations that can detect those combinations .
(~x&~y, ~x&y, x&~y, x&y) -- operation:
------------------------------------------
0000 -- false (regardless of inputs)
0001 -- x&y -- x and y
0010 -- x&~y -- not( ~x or y) -- x =/> y
0011 -- x (regardless of y)
0100 -- ~x&y -- not (x <= y)
0101 -- y (regardless of x)
0110 -- ~x&y or x&~y -- xor --
0111 -- x or y
1000 -- ~x&~y -- not(x or y) -- nor
1001 -- ~x&~y or x&y -- <=>
1010 -- ~y (regardless of x)
1011 -- not (~x&y) -- x or ~y -- x <= y
1100 -- ~x (regardless of y)
1101 -- not(x&~y) -- ~x or y -- x => y
1110 -- not(x&y) -- ~x or ~y -- nand,
1111 -- true (regardless of inputs)
the same rearranged by category:
non-binary logic:
truth values:
0000 -- false (regardless of inputs)
1111 -- true (regardless of inputs)
variable values:
0011 -- x (regardless of y)
1100 -- ~x (regardless of y)
0101 -- y (regardless of x)
1010 -- ~y (regardless of x)
classic binary logic:
0001 -- x and y
0111 -- x or y
1101 -- not(x&~y) -- ~x or y -- x => y
0010 -- x&~y -- not( ~x or y) -- x =/> y
1001 -- ~x&~y or x&y -- <=>
0110 -- ~x&y or x&~y -- xor --
modern binary logic:
1110 -- not(x&y) -- ~x or ~y -- nand,
1000 -- ~x&~y -- not(x or y) -- nor
english binary logic:
1011 -- not (~x&y) -- x or ~y -- x <= y -- implied by
0100 -- ~x&y -- not (x <= y) -- not implied by
. here is the if-else syntax:
t?
( c1: s1
, c2: s2
, else: s3
) .
if I add an elsif to the structure, how does that fit in ?;
actually, with the use of (?) instead of (if)
there's maximum brevity without using a
contraction of [else if] .
. using that case-style syntax, it'd look like this:
t1 ? ( s1
, else: t2 ? (s3
, else: t4 ? (s5
, else: s6 ))).
. using truth-style syntax, it looks normal:
t1 ? s1
else t2 ? s3
else t4 ? s5
else s6 .
-- neat, but since (if) doesn't have a terminator
(like ada's endif,
any nested if-else's have to be parenthesized
as do any statement sequences:
t1 ?
s1
else t2 ?
(t1 ? s1 else t2 ? s3 else t4 ? s5 else s6 )
else t4 ?
(s1; s2)
else
s6 .
[if vs ?]:
. if you'd rather use if's, then (t?) is generally
replaceable with (if t:); ie,
the (:) is acting as a terminator like the (?) does .
mis:
. at first I was seeing it as a case stmt
with more than one case possible
the thing need to be ordered
reminds of using (;) instead of (,)
as is structuring arrays into matrices .
even if I could make the matrix pattern fit,
I'm not sure a tired or new programmer could
keep a working knowledge of it .
sci:
. notice that since both of (if)'s args are required,
then you could also separate them with a space
like lisp does; in that case,
you'd be detecting the condition where
the next token in the 2nd arg has to be an infix
but instead you found a non-infix;
however, that wouldn't work in my current syntax,
because infix's can also serve as prefix's;
so the (if)'s arg's do need a separator,
and a natural for that situation is the colon .
then again:
. you could also tell that the (if)'s 2nd arg began
because the next infix you were expecting
would have to be a truth-operator, ie:
{ or, and; nor, nand,
<=>, -- x is/not equivalent to y ( is also called xor, exclusive-or),
=>, =/> -- x does/not imply y,
<=, }
another prequisite:
. the other problem with not using the colon,
is that you can no longer have overloading;
you'd have to reserve the logical operators;
and while it does add unnecessarily to bureaucracy,
it would aid considerably to readability .
nevertheless:
. speaking of readability, use of the separator would
make it easy for humans to quickly parse;
and while adda should let writers skip the separator,
it should provide the readers the option of viewing it;
ie, it would be part of the
full vs minimized punctuation theme .
the deal breaker:
. finally, an insurmountable problem is one of
users adding more binary logic operators,
or similar functions of the form:
(truth, other-type)->truth .
. they should be able to do that,
so, you'd also have to make a general rule about
no overloading of such,
and that would be too much bureacracy
for the sake of merely simplifying (if)'s .
list of truth-operators:
. here is a table of possible combinations on 2 variables, x,y;
and the operations that can detect those combinations .
(~x&~y, ~x&y, x&~y, x&y) -- operation:
------------------------------------------
0000 -- false (regardless of inputs)
0001 -- x&y -- x and y
0010 -- x&~y -- not( ~x or y) -- x =/> y
0011 -- x (regardless of y)
0100 -- ~x&y -- not (x <= y)
0101 -- y (regardless of x)
0110 -- ~x&y or x&~y -- xor --
0111 -- x or y
1000 -- ~x&~y -- not(x or y) -- nor
1001 -- ~x&~y or x&y -- <=>
1010 -- ~y (regardless of x)
1011 -- not (~x&y) -- x or ~y -- x <= y
1100 -- ~x (regardless of y)
1101 -- not(x&~y) -- ~x or y -- x => y
1110 -- not(x&y) -- ~x or ~y -- nand,
1111 -- true (regardless of inputs)
the same rearranged by category:
non-binary logic:
truth values:
0000 -- false (regardless of inputs)
1111 -- true (regardless of inputs)
variable values:
0011 -- x (regardless of y)
1100 -- ~x (regardless of y)
0101 -- y (regardless of x)
1010 -- ~y (regardless of x)
classic binary logic:
0001 -- x and y
0111 -- x or y
1101 -- not(x&~y) -- ~x or y -- x => y
0010 -- x&~y -- not( ~x or y) -- x =/> y
1001 -- ~x&~y or x&y -- <=>
0110 -- ~x&y or x&~y -- xor --
modern binary logic:
1110 -- not(x&y) -- ~x or ~y -- nand,
1000 -- ~x&~y -- not(x or y) -- nor
english binary logic:
1011 -- not (~x&y) -- x or ~y -- x <= y -- implied by
0100 -- ~x&y -- not (x <= y) -- not implied by
exceptions - events declared in the interface
adda/type/exceptions/events declared in the interface:
. the singleton pattern in the cocoa text has an example
where some device mgt needs to know when the app is closing
(ie, the app class provides a notification service,
and it needs to be registered with this service).
. generally,
if there is an event that type mgt needs,
declaring it in its interface should register it
to receive notifcations of any such events .
. notifications are interrupting the control flow
but unlike during ada exceptions,
the flow can return back to its routine .
. the singleton pattern in the cocoa text has an example
where some device mgt needs to know when the app is closing
(ie, the app class provides a notification service,
and it needs to be registered with this service).
. generally,
if there is an event that type mgt needs,
declaring it in its interface should register it
to receive notifcations of any such events .
. notifications are interrupting the control flow
but unlike during ada exceptions,
the flow can return back to its routine .
exceptions - when to use error logging instead
adda/cstr/exceptions/when to use error logging instead:
. if the misuse of an interface will be caught during compilation
then a logged warning is appropriate;
otherwise, the bug catch will be depending on
how much testing the client coder does,
so if the bug gets to the user,
there should be an exception to get some runtime backup;
ie, the code will be responding to exceptions with
certain fixes or apologies;
conversely, if the coder isn't catching exceptions
then that is some half-baked, dangerous code,
and the user should be made aware it
so then the denial of service implied by an uncaught exception
is warranted .
. if the misuse of an interface will be caught during compilation
then a logged warning is appropriate;
otherwise, the bug catch will be depending on
how much testing the client coder does,
so if the bug gets to the user,
there should be an exception to get some runtime backup;
ie, the code will be responding to exceptions with
certain fixes or apologies;
conversely, if the coder isn't catching exceptions
then that is some half-baked, dangerous code,
and the user should be made aware it
so then the denial of service implied by an uncaught exception
is warranted .
ada`separate addressing the overloaded
adda/syntax/ada`separate/addressing the overloaded:
. how is adda saying the full name of a nested subroutine,
like ada says separate is ... ? use keyword body func`body,
. functions can be overloaded (ie,
different functions with the same name
but distinguished by unique signatures),
so then the full path name may need to include the signature:
eg, func(t1,t2)`body/subroutine .
. how is adda saying the full name of a nested subroutine,
like ada says separate is ... ? use keyword body func`body,
. functions can be overloaded (ie,
different functions with the same name
but distinguished by unique signatures),
so then the full path name may need to include the signature:
eg, func(t1,t2)`body/subroutine .
possessive right for component selection?
12.3: proj.adda/syntax/possessive right for component selection?:
. I've been overloading the possessive for use as
both an obj`call and an obj`component,
any complications?
. wasn't there some new idea for record syntax,
like obj.component? yes:
http://amerdreamdocs.blogspot.com/2011/04/rethinking-aggregates.html
. the consequence was,
if a name already stands for a type,
it can't be used as the name for any component .
. that would be easy if there was a rule like
(type`names must be capitalized),
but most would rather write .int than .Z .
. adde can help out by auto-formatting types in a bold font .
. I've been overloading the possessive for use as
both an obj`call and an obj`component,
any complications?
. wasn't there some new idea for record syntax,
like obj.component? yes:
http://amerdreamdocs.blogspot.com/2011/04/rethinking-aggregates.html
. the consequence was,
if a name already stands for a type,
it can't be used as the name for any component .
. that would be easy if there was a rule like
(type`names must be capitalized),
but most would rather write .int than .Z .
. adde can help out by auto-formatting types in a bold font .
rom vs const
12.2: adda/cstr/rom vs const:
what did rom vs const mean?
. the use of a "rom" designation only makes sense when sharing;
because, const means it's rom even to self
(ie, no writes after init) .
. the rom and const could reuse the same symbol
since when a param says const
that's the same as promise to the caller that it'll be
treated as read-only: ie, const.
. const is like in-mode and that is the default mode;
12.3:
. there is still the issue of what happens to a param later;
eg, when my formal param uses the constant specifier,
it assures not only that it won't do any modifications
but also that it won't pass the obj to a modifying function .
. another issue is compatability:
{mutable, contst} can be assigned to const;
only mutable can assigned to mutable
(a param is mutable when declared as inout-mode ).
. due to obj's having access to themselves,
whether an operation of theirs is really read-only
is totally up to them their private implementations
unless the system can detect when they write .
. if the system can't detect that,
there will have to be more copying to assure modularity .
12.2:
. one efficiency trick for reducing the amount of copying,
is to wait for an attempted write
before doing the copy .
12.3:
. once the run-time mgt can detect writes to a rom,
it needs to raise an exception,
so, to avoid such messes,
param providers and their compilers
need to know what operations are modifiers .
. the way operations are described in an interface,
(`f) is assumed to be self-modifying
unless it states otherwise;
for f to be seen as non-modifying
it should be defined as a function
(ie, not out-mode params or side-affects)
or be tagged as non-modifying:
( !`f ).
what did rom vs const mean?
. the use of a "rom" designation only makes sense when sharing;
because, const means it's rom even to self
(ie, no writes after init) .
. the rom and const could reuse the same symbol
since when a param says const
that's the same as promise to the caller that it'll be
treated as read-only: ie, const.
. const is like in-mode and that is the default mode;
12.3:
. there is still the issue of what happens to a param later;
eg, when my formal param uses the constant specifier,
it assures not only that it won't do any modifications
but also that it won't pass the obj to a modifying function .
. another issue is compatability:
{mutable, contst} can be assigned to const;
only mutable can assigned to mutable
(a param is mutable when declared as inout-mode ).
. due to obj's having access to themselves,
whether an operation of theirs is really read-only
is totally up to them their private implementations
unless the system can detect when they write .
. if the system can't detect that,
there will have to be more copying to assure modularity .
12.2:
. one efficiency trick for reducing the amount of copying,
is to wait for an attempted write
before doing the copy .
12.3:
. once the run-time mgt can detect writes to a rom,
it needs to raise an exception,
so, to avoid such messes,
param providers and their compilers
need to know what operations are modifiers .
. the way operations are described in an interface,
(`f) is assumed to be self-modifying
unless it states otherwise;
for f to be seen as non-modifying
it should be defined as a function
(ie, not out-mode params or side-affects)
or be tagged as non-modifying:
( !`f ).
syntax for readonly, const, out, inout, persistent
12.2: adda/type/syntax for readonly, const, out, inout, persistent:
todo:
. need to review or finish the type syntax .
.#./.txt
.#./!.txt! -- array of const pointer to const text,
A ^#.txt -- persistent array of text,
[12.3:
. this would be a lot more readable if the (!) was simply replacing the (.)
#!/!txt -- the (!) would then be translated as "(return const ...)
-- that says type is array return const pointer to return constant text .
...
however, it doesn't address all needs:
for operations over self ( declared as x`f().t )
how do you say `f is readonly? ]
12.5: read-only operations:
. in places where !`f might say
(operation over obj is readonly)
[1039: adde's english mode should apply to commands too;
it would display footnotes of what a command does
in a twitter sized message . the footnotes would be at each step;
so also below any complete algebraic expression .]
the problem with consistency is that you're not using the same syntax
where dot is showing the obj type being returned .
. there were 2 situations for rom or const:
# rom for params ie sharing ,
# const for your own obj's .
. in the case of x`f(), you're looking to express rom on a param
but the param is implicit, so then you need to make it explicit:
(o!T)`f -- a read-only operation;
(o.T)`f, `g -- mutating operations .
todo:
. need to review or finish the type syntax .
.#./.txt
.#./!.txt! -- array of const pointer to const text,
A ^#.txt -- persistent array of text,
[12.3:
. this would be a lot more readable if the (!) was simply replacing the (.)
#!/!txt -- the (!) would then be translated as "(return const ...)
-- that says type is array return const pointer to return constant text .
...
however, it doesn't address all needs:
for operations over self ( declared as x`f().t )
how do you say `f is readonly? ]
12.5: read-only operations:
. in places where !`f might say
(operation over obj is readonly)
[1039: adde's english mode should apply to commands too;
it would display footnotes of what a command does
in a twitter sized message . the footnotes would be at each step;
so also below any complete algebraic expression .]
the problem with consistency is that you're not using the same syntax
where dot is showing the obj type being returned .
. there were 2 situations for rom or const:
# rom for params ie sharing ,
# const for your own obj's .
. in the case of x`f(), you're looking to express rom on a param
but the param is implicit, so then you need to make it explicit:
(o!T)`f -- a read-only operation;
(o.T)`f, `g -- mutating operations .
c's static internal vars
12.2: adda/cstr/c's static internal vars:
. c's static internal vars are can applied in obj'c
to both {class, instance} methods and functions .
. persistence is the essence of c's static internal vars:
they are locally scoped within a function,
yet retain their value between calls to the function .
. it's as if the modules that contain these functions
are keeping these "(locals) at their top level;
so for T.type/f.proc/x.txt
you might see the var is actually at
T`body/f.proc'space/x.txt .
. for a progam, it's actually structured as a package:
(main, subroutine, globals), so local static looks like:
program/Subroutine'space/x.txt .
. what does that look like in adda?
. my first idea was asserting that
part of simplicity is naming things after
the way they are actually structured;
but after seeing how verbose that was,
I'm looking at a functional keyword:
persistent (with brief symbol = (^)
-- an amusing reference to christian's one-way ).
. c's static internal vars are can applied in obj'c
to both {class, instance} methods and functions .
. persistence is the essence of c's static internal vars:
they are locally scoped within a function,
yet retain their value between calls to the function .
. it's as if the modules that contain these functions
are keeping these "(locals) at their top level;
so for T.type/f.proc/x.txt
you might see the var is actually at
T`body/f.proc'space/x.txt .
. for a progam, it's actually structured as a package:
(main, subroutine, globals), so local static looks like:
program/Subroutine'space/x.txt .
. what does that look like in adda?
. my first idea was asserting that
part of simplicity is naming things after
the way they are actually structured;
but after seeing how verbose that was,
I'm looking at a functional keyword:
persistent (with brief symbol = (^)
-- an amusing reference to christian's one-way ).
subclassing without sideaffects
12.22: todo.adda/oop/subclassing without sideaffects:
. how does the oop remain secure, and yet reusable?
they are having a lot of fun with subclassing,
so, is there any way to do that safely ?
the general idea is that it creates sideaffects,
so not only do you want to enforce capability limits on apps,
you also want to warn users when an app uses side-affecting features .
. you want to bar cap'grabbing features
like the obj'c categories which allow adding slots to library classes;
however, need to get more aquainted with
why they feel that is needed,
and find some alternative .
. how does the oop remain secure, and yet reusable?
they are having a lot of fun with subclassing,
so, is there any way to do that safely ?
the general idea is that it creates sideaffects,
so not only do you want to enforce capability limits on apps,
you also want to warn users when an app uses side-affecting features .
. you want to bar cap'grabbing features
like the obj'c categories which allow adding slots to library classes;
however, need to get more aquainted with
why they feel that is needed,
and find some alternative .
class methods
12.2: adda/oop/class methods:
. how does adda do an objc class method?
. there are notes already but here's review:
t.type: ((instance methods declared here));
t`classmethod().proc -- a class method
. you could also have everything in the interface,
distingishing {class, instance} with the usual keywords:
# self`f(x), `f(x) -- instance method (the default)
# class`g(x) -- class method .
[12.3:
. this basically mirrors the way obj'c does it .]
. how does adda do an objc class method?
. there are notes already but here's review:
t.type: ((instance methods declared here));
t`classmethod().proc -- a class method
. you could also have everything in the interface,
distingishing {class, instance} with the usual keywords:
# self`f(x), `f(x) -- instance method (the default)
# class`g(x) -- class method .
[12.3:
. this basically mirrors the way obj'c does it .]
2011-11-30
link expansion options
11.7: adde/outliner/links whose default is
[target replaces current link instead of current page]:
. outlines are like a tree of links except that
instead of the destination replacing the current view
it becomes added to it .
. notice that this is a generalizable link option:
a link would have a default activity,
but by using the context menu, you could select either
{ target replaces current link instead of current page
, target replaces current page
, target lauches in new {window, tab, todo list}
}.
[target replaces current link instead of current page]:
. outlines are like a tree of links except that
instead of the destination replacing the current view
it becomes added to it .
. notice that this is a generalizable link option:
a link would have a default activity,
but by using the context menu, you could select either
{ target replaces current link instead of current page
, target replaces current page
, target lauches in new {window, tab, todo list}
}.
inferred typing
11.12: adda/types/inferred typing:
(reviewing evlan's type system draft)
[@] 11.10.31/news.adda/lang"evlan/
evlan.org describes many addx features
. the reason you want to infer types
is so that you can have an efficient run-time;
if you don't care about that, as when prototyping,
then oop can be checking everything at run-time,
and both the coding and the compile times can be very fast .
. perhaps another reason to infer types
is so that you can warn users when oop might not help?
-- see the obj'c text's explanation of
why you don't want to type everything weakly
(as a pointer to anything);
basically it's because obj'c offers
so much freedom with deferred linking
that the compiler can make only the most general
inference:
if you don't mention a constraint
then the compiler has to assume you need
an unconstrained type for the purpose of
linking to future objects of unknown type .
. prototype developers and even production coders
like oop especially because it lends itself well
to such typeless programming,
ie, specifically avoiding type constraints by
letting the objects themselves decide whether
they understand a certain command .
. when you get into binary operations though,
(ie, pairs of objects -- and pairing is where
the dancing gets interesting )
then typeless programming is not so useful,
so typing is the only way to do what I call oop
(the classic example of oop
is the polymorphic type"number,
a class of subtypes including integers and floats;
ie, integer and floats can be playing well together
only because they are declared as subtypes of
the same type supertype, Numbers ).
(reviewing evlan's type system draft)
[@] 11.10.31/news.adda/lang"evlan/
evlan.org describes many addx features
. the reason you want to infer types
is so that you can have an efficient run-time;
if you don't care about that, as when prototyping,
then oop can be checking everything at run-time,
and both the coding and the compile times can be very fast .
. perhaps another reason to infer types
is so that you can warn users when oop might not help?
-- see the obj'c text's explanation of
why you don't want to type everything weakly
(as a pointer to anything);
basically it's because obj'c offers
so much freedom with deferred linking
that the compiler can make only the most general
inference:
if you don't mention a constraint
then the compiler has to assume you need
an unconstrained type for the purpose of
linking to future objects of unknown type .
. prototype developers and even production coders
like oop especially because it lends itself well
to such typeless programming,
ie, specifically avoiding type constraints by
letting the objects themselves decide whether
they understand a certain command .
. when you get into binary operations though,
(ie, pairs of objects -- and pairing is where
the dancing gets interesting )
then typeless programming is not so useful,
so typing is the only way to do what I call oop
(the classic example of oop
is the polymorphic type"number,
a class of subtypes including integers and floats;
ie, integer and floats can be playing well together
only because they are declared as subtypes of
the same type supertype, Numbers ).
evlan.org describes many #addx features
10.31: news.adda/lang"evlan/
evlan.org describes many addx features:
. Kenton Varda's Evlan has many addx features;
but, it "(currently has no type system);
and, it died in 2007.10.1, when the author "(got a real job)!
. what first caught my was cap-based security:
is its being a virtual operating system
which runs on top of any other operating system;
via a virtual machine that is the sole access
to the underlying platform's OS .
. by a complete platform,
he means it is not specialized to be
efficiently accessing all of bloated unix,
but to define what it needs,
and then have the vm access what it needs
for impl'ing the Evlan virtual platform .
adda's secure by language idea:
also implementing security at the hardware level;
this is the level where modularity can be enforced;
otherwise, malware could just jump to
what ever code there is with the permissions it needs .
(see qubes doc's) .]
-- that means esp'ly your browser --
are all written in this provable language ? ]
see: Capability-based Security is used in the
EROS operating system and the E programming language.
Also, Marc Stiegler et al.
addx's idea that concurrency is the key
to secure speed:
meant for a single CPU; eg, [written in adda:]
having only 19 keywords;
one of which is "(where)
which could have been said with a reused "(:) .]
Because Evlan is purely functional,
no function call is allowed to have "side effects".
. see www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=225
(dead link, is this right: queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=864034)?
-- ask google where else that link can be found:
Natural programming languages and environments
Communications of the ACM September 2004/Vol. 47, No. 9 by Brad A. Myers, John F. Pane, Andy Ko
. another contrast to assembly-like imperative instructions
is addm's idea for a high-level interpreter:
instead of translating from an abstract syntax tree (AST)
into a sequence of assembly instructions;
addm, the vm, would try to evaluate an AST . ]
evlan.org describes many addx features:
. Kenton Varda's Evlan has many addx features;
but, it "(currently has no type system);
and, it died in 2007.10.1, when the author "(got a real job)!
. what first caught my was cap-based security:
Most of today's computer platforms operate under. the other main idea like addx
a fundamental assumption that has proven utterly false:
that if a user executes a program,
the user completely trusts the program.
This assumption has been made by just about
every operating system since Unix
and is made by all popular operating systems used today.
This one assumption is arguably responsible for
the majority of end-user security problems.
It is the reason malware -- adware, spyware, and viruses --
are even possible to write,
and it is the reason even big-name software
like certain web browsers
are so hard to keep secure.
Under the classical security model,
when a user runs a piece of software,
the user is granting that software the capability
to do anything that the user can do.
Under capability-based security,
when a user runs a piece of software,
the software starts out with no capabilities whatsoever.
The user may then grant specific capabilities to the program.
For example, the user might grant the program
permission to read its data files.
The user could also control whether or not
the program may access the network, play sounds, etc.
Most importantly,
all of these abilities can be controlled
independently on a per-program basis.
is its being a virtual operating system
which runs on top of any other operating system;
via a virtual machine that is the sole access
to the underlying platform's OS .
. by a complete platform,
he means it is not specialized to be
efficiently accessing all of bloated unix,
but to define what it needs,
and then have the vm access what it needs
for impl'ing the Evlan virtual platform .
adda's secure by language idea:
Even better than implementing security in an operating system,--[. keep in mind that this won't work without
is implementing it in a programming language:
developers are able to control the capabilities available
to each piece of code independently.
Good practice, then, would be to only give each component
the bare minimum capabilities that it needs to
perform its desired operation.
And, in fact, it is easier to give fewer capabilities,
so this is what programmers will usually do.
The result is that if a security hole exists in some part of your program,
the worst an attacker can do is
gain access to the capabilities that were given to that component.
also implementing security at the hardware level;
this is the level where modularity can be enforced;
otherwise, malware could just jump to
what ever code there is with the permissions it needs .
(see qubes doc's) .]
It is often possible to restrict all "dangerous" capabilities[. great to know if your os and every other app
to one very small piece of code within your program.
Then, all you have to do is make sure that
that one piece of code is secure.
When you are only dealing with a small amount of code,
it is often possible to prove that this is the case.
It is, in fact, quite possible to prove
that a program written in a capability-based language
is secure.
-- that means esp'ly your browser --
are all written in this provable language ? ]
see: Capability-based Security is used in the
EROS operating system and the E programming language.
Also, Marc Stiegler et al.
addx's idea that concurrency is the key
to secure speed:
Evlan has strong support for highly concurrent programmingMost of today's systems use imperative languages
being a purely functional language,
Where automatic parallelization is not possible,
there are very lightweight threads (without stacks).
meant for a single CPU; eg, [written in adda:]
processAll(results#t.type).proc:
for(i.int = results`domain):
results#i`= processItem results#i
).. in c, it would process each item in order,adda aspires to be simple:
from first to last.
It does not give the system any room to
process two items in parallel
or in some arbitrary (most-efficient) order .
It is far easier to remember--[. however he has ada-itis and braggs about
multiple uses for a single construct
than to remember multiple constructs.
having only 19 keywords;
one of which is "(where)
which could have been said with a reused "(:) .]
interoperability done via compatibility layers:functional:
If and when the legacy software is no longer in use,
the compatibility layers can be removed,
leaving only the ultra-efficient Evlan core behind.
Because Evlan is purely functional,
no function call is allowed to have "side effects".
. see www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=225
(dead link, is this right: queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=864034)?
-- ask google where else that link can be found:
Natural programming languages and environments
Communications of the ACM September 2004/Vol. 47, No. 9 by Brad A. Myers, John F. Pane, Andy Ko
This article presents findings on natural programming languages.natural programming:
(i.e. natural as in intuitive in the UserCentric way)
It advocates features for programming languages,
that are justified by these findings.
Areas include:
SyntacticSugar, that causes fewer errors
(it more intuitive/natural).
Better integrated debugging-support,
esp. for hypotheses about bug-causes.
which suggests that humans like to write rules of the form
"When condition X is true, do Y".
I am not yet sure to what extent this will
change the current system, however.
By "natural programming" we are aiming forFunctional Bytecode
the language and environment to work the way that
nonprogrammers expect.
We argue that if the computer language were to
enable people to express algorithms and data
more like their natural expressions,
the transformation effort would be reduced.
Thus, the Natural Programming approach
is an application of the standard user-centered design process
to the specific domain of programming languages and environments.
[at that link is a] good short summary of the
Natural Programming project here at CMU.
We're affiliated with the EUSES consortium,
which is a group of universities working on
end-user software engineering.
google's 2007 Update on the Natural Programming Project
Bytecode for the Evlan virtual machine--[11.30:
uses a functional representation of the code.
In contrast, the VMs of Java and .NET
use assembly-like imperative instructions.
. the GNU C Compiler's "Static Single Assignment" phase
is actually very close to being equivalent to
a purely functional language. [no overwrites]
If GCC does this internally just to make optimization easier,
then it doesn't take a huge stretch to imagine a system which
compiles imperative code to functional bytecode .
. another contrast to assembly-like imperative instructions
is addm's idea for a high-level interpreter:
instead of translating from an abstract syntax tree (AST)
into a sequence of assembly instructions;
addm, the vm, would try to evaluate an AST . ]
The purpose of constraining variables to types
is to get the compiler to check your work for bugs
and optimize code as well .
. if you could specify that an index to an array
must be less than the size of the array
-- and if the compiler could then check for that --
then buffer overruns (one of the most common bugs
leading to security holes in modern software)
would be completely eliminated.
(run-time bounds checking can prevent buffer overruns,
but then users see your app shutting down unexpectedly).
2011-11-01
bundles obviate folders-first policy option
10.21: adde/fs/mac's bundle idea obviates folders-first policy option:
. instead of having a folders-first policy option,
the file system should be more like
mac's bundle system
where each folder has the option of
declaring itself to be either
a folder or a bundle .
. so then, in a file system window,
folders can be listed before files,
but the bundles are treated like files .
. instead of having a folders-first policy option,
the file system should be more like
mac's bundle system
where each folder has the option of
declaring itself to be either
a folder or a bundle .
. so then, in a file system window,
folders can be listed before files,
but the bundles are treated like files .
user changes can help with localization
10.23: adde/gui/user changes help with localization:
. there should be a wrench icon
by every command
that leads to this message:
"(if you figured out what this does,
and you can think of a better word in your language,
please do tell by emailing here ...)
even better,
the gui should be editable so that when you figure something
you can give it your own words or icons .
. the program keeps a config file of this,
and every time they change it,
you can remind them that when they
feel satisfied with their gui
they can share it with others
(at this email ...).
. make sure they confirm that their understood language
is in fact what they think they're targeting;
and allow comments that include dialects or locations
that they think it's special to ?
-- source of that idea's inspiration:
news: Software Localization Paradox:
Translatewiki.net
. a localisation platform for translation communities,
language communities, and free and open source projects.
-- found by gui translator who refered to
wikimedia's localizion paradox .
from an Interview with Wikimedia’s Amir Aharoni .
. there should be a wrench icon
by every command
that leads to this message:
"(if you figured out what this does,
and you can think of a better word in your language,
please do tell by emailing here ...)
even better,
the gui should be editable so that when you figure something
you can give it your own words or icons .
. the program keeps a config file of this,
and every time they change it,
you can remind them that when they
feel satisfied with their gui
they can share it with others
(at this email ...).
. make sure they confirm that their understood language
is in fact what they think they're targeting;
and allow comments that include dialects or locations
that they think it's special to ?
-- source of that idea's inspiration:
news: Software Localization Paradox:
Like any other translation,
software localization is best done by people who know well
both the original language in which
the software interface was written – usually English,
and the target language.
People who don’t know English strongly
prefer to use software in a language they know.
If the software is not available in their language,
they will either not use it at all
or will have to memorize lots of
otherwise meaningless English strings
and locations of buttons.
People who do know English often prefer to
use software in English
even if it is available in their native language.
The two most frequent explanations for that is
that the translation is bad
and that people who want to use computers
should learn English anyway.
The problem is that for various reasons
lots of people will never learn English
even if it would be mandatory in schools
and useful for business.
They will have to suffer the bad translations
and will have no way to fix it.
So this is the paradox
– to fix localization bugs,
someone must notice them,
and to notice them, more people who know English
must use localized software,
but people who know English
rarely use localized software.
That’s why lately i’ve been evangelizing about it.
Even people who know English well
should use software in their language
– not to boost their national pride,
but to help the people who
speak that language and don’t know English.
They should use the software especially if it’s translated badly,
because they are the only ones who can
report bugs in the translation
or fix the bugs themselves.
(A side note: Needless to say,
Free Software
is much more convenient for localization,
because proprietary software companies are usually
too hard to even approach about this matter;
they only pay translators if they have a reason to believe
that it will increase sales.
This is another often overlooked advantage
of Free Software.)
I am glad to say that i convinced most people to whom i spoke
about it at Wikimania
to at least try to use Firefox in their native language
and taught them where to report bugs about it.
I also challenged them to write at least
one article in the Wikipedia
in their own language,
such as Hindi, Telugu or Kannada
– as useful as the English Wikipedia is
to the world,
Telugu Wikipedia is much more useful
for people who speak Telugu, but no English.
I already saw some results.
I am now looking for ideas and verifiable data
to develop this concept further.
What are the best strategies to convince people
that they should use localized software?
For example:
How economically viable is software localization?
What is cheaper for an education department of a country
– to translate software for schools
or to teach all the students English?
Or: How does the absence of localized software
affect different geographical areas
in Africa, India, the Middle East?
Translatewiki.net
. a localisation platform for translation communities,
language communities, and free and open source projects.
-- found by gui translator who refered to
wikimedia's localizion paradox .
from an Interview with Wikimedia’s Amir Aharoni .
2011-10-31
adda markup's conflicts with ini format
10.25: news.adda/markup/conflicts with ini format:
. bzr (the ubuntu team's distrib'd cvs)
uses an ini folder with the catgories of
[/] and [groups] .
. generally the ini format can
conflict with the adda markup lang's syntax
because it uses brackets as category headers,
and the category name may consist of a single symbol character .
. bzr (the ubuntu team's distrib'd cvs)
uses an ini folder with the catgories of
[/] and [groups] .
. generally the ini format can
conflict with the adda markup lang's syntax
because it uses brackets as category headers,
and the category name may consist of a single symbol character .
double-equal to mean prolonged equality
10.12: adda/lexicon/==:
. the == could be like the japanese way of
2-trees representing many trees: a forest .
. 2 equals would say the values are
equal for many moments,
ie, they are pointers to the same obj; [10.13:
or they are part of a notify&update pattern .
it could also be used as a special form of
assignment stmt:
whatever you're getting access to,
you have some way of maintaining synchronization,
as would occur if using aliases .]
. the == could be like the japanese way of
2-trees representing many trees: a forest .
. 2 equals would say the values are
equal for many moments,
ie, they are pointers to the same obj; [10.13:
or they are part of a notify&update pattern .
it could also be used as a special form of
assignment stmt:
whatever you're getting access to,
you have some way of maintaining synchronization,
as would occur if using aliases .]
meta.compiler
10.10: adda/meta.compiler:
. there should be a meta.compiler
that lets you write a list of
transforms from adda to target lang
and then the meta compiler is
generating the compiler from this list .
. to get started, just make the usual compiler;
and, along the way,
be looking for how to generalize the process;
--
. the first step is to finalize the adda lang,
then write a translation map from general adda
to the simple adda that maps directly to c
(eg, procedures can't be nested ).
. there should be a meta.compiler
that lets you write a list of
transforms from adda to target lang
and then the meta compiler is
generating the compiler from this list .
. to get started, just make the usual compiler;
and, along the way,
be looking for how to generalize the process;
--
. the first step is to finalize the adda lang,
then write a translation map from general adda
to the simple adda that maps directly to c
(eg, procedures can't be nested ).
types of access constraints
10.5: todo.adda/types of access constraints:
. {rom, wom, xom, xwm} could be the keywords for the
various types of access constraint for
read-, write-, execute-, and write&execute- only-memory .
. instead of having any combo of rwx,
consider that an execute priv'
implies a read priv' .
. the original unix way had in mind
-- in addition to the self, group, world groups --
a sort of 4th group: executives
those whose activities depended upon
what file they opened .
other ideas:
. when does the system need an exe'able permission?
. if that app is an executive,
then it can execute any type it recognizes as exe'able .
todo:
. review previous ideas of
how an obj's name can include access types;
(just as it includes its datatype);
eg, f.txt mean obj"f is type"txt,
so then how does its name explain
access constraints such as (rom vs rwm)
and (in vs out) param types ?
10.21: adda/types of access constraints/intro:
. the fundamental operation of unix
revolves around this:
a user with privilege status of
{owner, member of owner's group}
is applying an app to a file,
if the app and file permissions permit it .
. a file may be located in
either a private or public space:
a private space is usable by
whoever has the owner's key .
. the key holder claims self belongs to a group;
and other users can belong to the same group .
. files can grant separate permissions for
{ owner (what the keyholder can do)
, in-group (what the owner's group can do)
, in-others (what anyone can do)
}.
. an executive is a special type of app
that uses its input data
as the source of instructions it will follow
including the decision of
what it will affect on the computer;
whereas non-exec's will decide their behavior
only from their constant program code,
along with their memory of their previous behavior,
and changes in the machine's state .
. most of these non-exec's are just editors,
affecting at most the files they are given,
some private mem, and the screen buffer .
. files should be tagged executable {xom, xwm}
only if their data is suitable for
instructing some executive .
. a user can be thought of as being
a sort of executive app .
. the user's actual executive power
is determined by which group of app's
the user is allowed to execute
which in turn is determined by
the executive apps' file permissions
and whether the file considers the user
to be {owner, in-group, others}.
. executives can be calling other executives,
just as the user calls them,
so, suppose a called executive
is considered to have the same priviledge
as the {executive, user} that called it;
then, a human user could run a public app,
and when that app tries to access
the user's private files,
this would be allowed .
. the exe'able permission is saying
that if you are an executive
you can read this even if
your caller doesn't have read permission;
likewise,
having a read permission is saying:
you can read this regardless of
whether you're an executive or not .
. so, all of that was the typical
unix permissions scheme;
an alternative is capability based security:
. an app can only access
the files that are within the folders that are
listed in the app's capability descriptor .
. file's and folders, too,
can have a capability descriptor
that can override any app's capabilities .
. {rom, wom, xom, xwm} could be the keywords for the
various types of access constraint for
read-, write-, execute-, and write&execute- only-memory .
. instead of having any combo of rwx,
consider that an execute priv'
implies a read priv' .
. the original unix way had in mind
-- in addition to the self, group, world groups --
a sort of 4th group: executives
those whose activities depended upon
what file they opened .
other ideas:
. when does the system need an exe'able permission?
. if that app is an executive,
then it can execute any type it recognizes as exe'able .
todo:
. review previous ideas of
how an obj's name can include access types;
(just as it includes its datatype);
eg, f.txt mean obj"f is type"txt,
so then how does its name explain
access constraints such as (rom vs rwm)
and (in vs out) param types ?
10.21: adda/types of access constraints/intro:
. the fundamental operation of unix
revolves around this:
a user with privilege status of
{owner, member of owner's group}
is applying an app to a file,
if the app and file permissions permit it .
. a file may be located in
either a private or public space:
a private space is usable by
whoever has the owner's key .
. the key holder claims self belongs to a group;
and other users can belong to the same group .
. files can grant separate permissions for
{ owner (what the keyholder can do)
, in-group (what the owner's group can do)
, in-others (what anyone can do)
}.
. an executive is a special type of app
that uses its input data
as the source of instructions it will follow
including the decision of
what it will affect on the computer;
whereas non-exec's will decide their behavior
only from their constant program code,
along with their memory of their previous behavior,
and changes in the machine's state .
. most of these non-exec's are just editors,
affecting at most the files they are given,
some private mem, and the screen buffer .
. files should be tagged executable {xom, xwm}
only if their data is suitable for
instructing some executive .
. a user can be thought of as being
a sort of executive app .
. the user's actual executive power
is determined by which group of app's
the user is allowed to execute
which in turn is determined by
the executive apps' file permissions
and whether the file considers the user
to be {owner, in-group, others}.
. executives can be calling other executives,
just as the user calls them,
so, suppose a called executive
is considered to have the same priviledge
as the {executive, user} that called it;
then, a human user could run a public app,
and when that app tries to access
the user's private files,
this would be allowed .
. the exe'able permission is saying
that if you are an executive
you can read this even if
your caller doesn't have read permission;
likewise,
having a read permission is saying:
you can read this regardless of
whether you're an executive or not .
. so, all of that was the typical
unix permissions scheme;
an alternative is capability based security:
. an app can only access
the files that are within the folders that are
listed in the app's capability descriptor .
. file's and folders, too,
can have a capability descriptor
that can override any app's capabilities .
2011-10-02
window config' generation and automation
9.27: adde/gui/window config' generation and automation:
. once windows are arranged in an oft-used way,
you can generate an icon representing that way,
and have it become available by menu .
. to customize your menu item,
there's a pallet of icon styles:
# a miniature of the current display,
# an abstract view with only window frames,
# and either of the above with
names of chosen apps added to the icon .
. for speedy creation of window arrangements,
there is a window drawing mode,
such that anything you do with mouse
affects only the frames of the windows,
not their content;
so, you don't need to be a sharp shooter
targeting scrollbars or tiny buttons .
. also, the windows are auto'ly tiled,
so your point selections don't have to be exact .
. a mouse-down dragged to another point
makes a rectangle, as usual;
then clicking in the resulting rectangle
brings up a list of frequently used app's and folders;
the default is a finder window .
-- todo:
that reminds how ipad
lets you scroll with multi-touch
maybe they have something for auto-tiling too?
. I remember the mac plus in 1985,
it had an easy drawing app that so inspired me .
. once windows are arranged in an oft-used way,
you can generate an icon representing that way,
and have it become available by menu .
. to customize your menu item,
there's a pallet of icon styles:
# a miniature of the current display,
# an abstract view with only window frames,
# and either of the above with
names of chosen apps added to the icon .
. for speedy creation of window arrangements,
there is a window drawing mode,
such that anything you do with mouse
affects only the frames of the windows,
not their content;
so, you don't need to be a sharp shooter
targeting scrollbars or tiny buttons .
. also, the windows are auto'ly tiled,
so your point selections don't have to be exact .
. a mouse-down dragged to another point
makes a rectangle, as usual;
then clicking in the resulting rectangle
brings up a list of frequently used app's and folders;
the default is a finder window .
-- todo:that reminds how ipad
lets you scroll with multi-touch
maybe they have something for auto-tiling too?
. I remember the mac plus in 1985,
it had an easy drawing app that so inspired me .
2011-08-28
function graph editing
8.4: adde/function graph editing:
. how is audio graphing done?
how is the gui separated from the command processor?
. each unit of mouse movement
practically represents a pixel unit
which then represents a range of data points;
the first of those points can be chosen;
or if there is a sharp spike
then find the high and low
to include every point inclusive;
ie, graph a vertical line instead of a point .
. audio graphing is like strings of words,
but instead of the words differing in length,
they are all on their side for differing height .
. range selections result in a pair of numbers:
the {begin, end} of range,
which are then sent to the processor .
. if the range was possibly modified,
the editor then has to regraph that range .
8.28:
. the editor can handle this without knowing
the particulars of the audio graphing,
because it will have an interface for
generic function editing;
or rather,
the editor and every command processor
will all speak the system language:
the system's language describes
a mathematical function
as either a set of points or a formula
along with a type specification that includes
a domain and codomain;
with an optional subdomain and inverse operator .
. how is audio graphing done?
how is the gui separated from the command processor?
. each unit of mouse movement
practically represents a pixel unit
which then represents a range of data points;
the first of those points can be chosen;
or if there is a sharp spike
then find the high and low
to include every point inclusive;
ie, graph a vertical line instead of a point .
. audio graphing is like strings of words,
but instead of the words differing in length,
they are all on their side for differing height .
. range selections result in a pair of numbers:
the {begin, end} of range,
which are then sent to the processor .
. if the range was possibly modified,
the editor then has to regraph that range .
8.28:
. the editor can handle this without knowing
the particulars of the audio graphing,
because it will have an interface for
generic function editing;
or rather,
the editor and every command processor
will all speak the system language:
the system's language describes
a mathematical function
as either a set of points or a formula
along with a type specification that includes
a domain and codomain;
with an optional subdomain and inverse operator .
2011-07-30
when software capitalists become dictators
7.4: adds/security
/when software capitalists become dictators:
. we see what a mess engineers have made of
the internet and computer security;
as chips make more decisions in our appliances,
they are like new laws imposed upon our nature;
this is where capitalists would be legislators;
and they must therefore submit to our constitution:
ie, representatives are elected,
initiatives can be brought by the people
and laws are open to public scrutiny .
. not only is opensource software not communism
(Bill Gates was misquoted as suggesting this);
but software as private capital
is sure to present an inevitable tyranny
just like a communism will
without the checks and balances of
democracy and separation of powers .
7.15: adds/robot/constitution with context casing:
. one way to balance private and public interests
is by including a context chip,
which has the ability to override other chips
whenever it senses the robot is on public property .
. it would also have final say over
the use of force the public is interested in .
/when software capitalists become dictators:
. we see what a mess engineers have made of
the internet and computer security;
as chips make more decisions in our appliances,
they are like new laws imposed upon our nature;
this is where capitalists would be legislators;
and they must therefore submit to our constitution:
ie, representatives are elected,
initiatives can be brought by the people
and laws are open to public scrutiny .
. not only is opensource software not communism
(Bill Gates was misquoted as suggesting this);
but software as private capital
is sure to present an inevitable tyranny
just like a communism will
without the checks and balances of
democracy and separation of powers .
7.15: adds/robot/constitution with context casing:
. one way to balance private and public interests
is by including a context chip,
which has the ability to override other chips
whenever it senses the robot is on public property .
. it would also have final say over
the use of force the public is interested in .
TDD (Test-Driven Development)
web.adds/sw.dev.process
/TDD (Test-Driven Development):
7.1:
"( my python web app is obs ! )
"( you forgot your TDD unit tests, pal )
. what is TDD? Test-Driven Development
TDD != Unit Testing Dave Rolsky 2009
7.5: synth:
. in test driven development,
rather than ask "(how to impl this feature?),
we ask "(how do you prove
that a feature is impl'd?)
-- and that drives your interface design
(ie, the tests are designed even before
the interfaces, not just the bodies).
links:
sw.dev.process @ wiki
Xunit options for obj'c
agilepainrelief.com:
. the unit test tries to verify
all features of a given module;
tdd (Test-driven development) is about
using tests as documentation:
. assuming you already have
libraries of utilities and datatypes,
you design the interface first
then the tests, and finally the bodies
that will make the tests pass .
. if you are writing your documentation first;
then you won't have any problems with also
writing test harnesses before the app is built .
. this is supposed to complement prototyping:
the developer often needs a semi-working model
to get ideas for a more polished model .
. the prototype is then used as the basis
for a high-reliability app
that writes the final design as a set of
user doc's, unit tests,
maint'doc's, feature tests,
and functional tests (having each function
beginning with precondition testing
and ending with postcondition testing).
. reverting to the last version that passed all tests
may often be more productive than debugging.
instead of relying on platform services directly,
they should be accessed through a wrapper,
so that functional testing can be applied .
--
See dependency inversion principle
/TDD (Test-Driven Development):
7.1:
"( my python web app is obs ! )
"( you forgot your TDD unit tests, pal )
. what is TDD? Test-Driven Development
TDD != Unit Testing Dave Rolsky 2009
7.5: synth:
. in test driven development,
rather than ask "(how to impl this feature?),
we ask "(how do you prove
that a feature is impl'd?)
-- and that drives your interface design
(ie, the tests are designed even before
the interfaces, not just the bodies).
links:
sw.dev.process @ wiki
Xunit options for obj'c
agilepainrelief.com:
I’ve been on projects where we tried to writeunit testing vs Test-driven_development
all of our tests after the classes were written.
Our test suite was valuable
and prevented many regressions.
But it allowed many issues to slip through.
Weaker elements in API’s were often missed
and were changed only at a later date
at some expense.
Tightly coupled code was allowed to evolve
making some elements of the application
very difficult to test
without having to create dozens of
other (often unnecessary) objects.
As a result of all this
it became more difficult to write test cases over time.
Would TDD have solved all of these problems?
Perhaps not but it would have forced us to
confront many of them sooner.
. the unit test tries to verify
all features of a given module;
tdd (Test-driven development) is about
using tests as documentation:
. assuming you already have
libraries of utilities and datatypes,
you design the interface first
then the tests, and finally the bodies
that will make the tests pass .
. if you are writing your documentation first;
then you won't have any problems with also
writing test harnesses before the app is built .
. this is supposed to complement prototyping:
the developer often needs a semi-working model
to get ideas for a more polished model .
. the prototype is then used as the basis
for a high-reliability app
that writes the final design as a set of
user doc's, unit tests,
maint'doc's, feature tests,
and functional tests (having each function
beginning with precondition testing
and ending with postcondition testing).
. reverting to the last version that passed all tests
may often be more productive than debugging.
instead of relying on platform services directly,
they should be accessed through a wrapper,
so that functional testing can be applied .
--
See dependency inversion principle
including obj'c features
7.23: adda/oop/including obj'c features:
. in the expression"( a`b(x)`c ),
the ( a`b(x) ) means
the object"a has a procedure b(x)
that returns an object location
whose available functions include c .
. the syntax"(a`b) is not necessarily
involving self-modification;
it simply means subprogram"b has access to (a)
as an inout parameter
(the subprogram's object parameter).
. is there some efficient way of doing a`b`c
without passing pointers ?
I was thinking there was some virtual way
that doesn't really need pointers
(oop doesn't really need
all the pointers it thinks it needs)...
. if a subprogram's object param
returns a reference to something other than
the object param,
then in the c translation of same
this subprogram takes a destination param;
ie, a param that inputs a destination address
showing where the caller wants the return placed .
. why wouldn't it always take a destination param
even when returning self? ...
because the caller is already housing that obj .
7.26:
. my original concern here
was allowing the passing of references
and the use of object param's,
just like obj'c oop does,
while still using the sort of oop system
that did not generate garbage .
todo:
. I think obj'c has the convention that
even if ( a`b(x) doesn't return anything
if an object reference is expected as a return,
as is the case in "( a`b(x)`c ),
then it will use a reference to (a);
ie, ( a`b(x)`c ) would equal:
( a`b(x); a`c ) .
. in the expression"( a`b(x)`c ),
the ( a`b(x) ) means
the object"a has a procedure b(x)
that returns an object location
whose available functions include c .
. the syntax"(a`b) is not necessarily
involving self-modification;
it simply means subprogram"b has access to (a)
as an inout parameter
(the subprogram's object parameter).
. is there some efficient way of doing a`b`c
without passing pointers ?
I was thinking there was some virtual way
that doesn't really need pointers
(oop doesn't really need
all the pointers it thinks it needs)...
. if a subprogram's object param
returns a reference to something other than
the object param,
then in the c translation of same
this subprogram takes a destination param;
ie, a param that inputs a destination address
showing where the caller wants the return placed .
. why wouldn't it always take a destination param
even when returning self? ...
because the caller is already housing that obj .
7.26:
. my original concern here
was allowing the passing of references
and the use of object param's,
just like obj'c oop does,
while still using the sort of oop system
that did not generate garbage .
todo:
. I think obj'c has the convention that
even if ( a`b(x) doesn't return anything
if an object reference is expected as a return,
as is the case in "( a`b(x)`c ),
then it will use a reference to (a);
ie, ( a`b(x)`c ) would equal:
( a`b(x); a`c ) .
protecting the stack limits
7.22: adda/protecting the stack limits:
. how can one test for stack limits per platform?
if you test it once per platform
could the limit become smaller later?
it could depend on number of processes,
and current ram count ?
the user or an error could downgrade ram .
some help from addm:
. one thing that helps the stack problem
is assuming that user programs are addm code
rather than native code;
addm uses the c stack in a very limited way
and puts the user's stack entirely in the heap;
the user does call standard libraries
that in turn are native code;
but these can be designed to conserve stack space
(eg,
all recursive routines are finding some way to
serialize the large jobs;
eg, instead of giving gig's to quicksort,
the sorter breaks the job into mbyte sections,
and gives the quicksort's sections to mergesort ).
...
but can't the user can program natively? yes:
(see adda/natively coded extensions)
the user isn't restricted to addm,
so adda must be aware of some stack limits
and provide protections against overflow .
. how can one test for stack limits per platform?
if you test it once per platform
could the limit become smaller later?
it could depend on number of processes,
and current ram count ?
the user or an error could downgrade ram .
some help from addm:
. one thing that helps the stack problem
is assuming that user programs are addm code
rather than native code;
addm uses the c stack in a very limited way
and puts the user's stack entirely in the heap;
the user does call standard libraries
that in turn are native code;
but these can be designed to conserve stack space
(eg,
all recursive routines are finding some way to
serialize the large jobs;
eg, instead of giving gig's to quicksort,
the sorter breaks the job into mbyte sections,
and gives the quicksort's sections to mergesort ).
...
but can't the user can program natively? yes:
(see adda/natively coded extensions)
the user isn't restricted to addm,
so adda must be aware of some stack limits
and provide protections against overflow .
symbol table linking
7.14: 7.15: adda/symbol table linking:
. etrees (expression trees)
are tree nodes with pointers into
global and local dictionaries of symbols
(symbol tables).
. every etree module
implies access to a global symbol table,
and must specify any needed local symbol tables .
. there can be more than one local symbol table;
because, a dictionary can include procedures;
and, procedure definitions can have
local dictionaries:
the parent procedure becomes the
scope of its local dictionary,
hence the term "(nested scopes),
involving stacks of local symbol tables .
. each module has a tree of symbol tables .
. a typical scope path is:
module/subprog/nested sub/nested block/nested block .
. the 3 main uses of "(library) include
system, standard, and custom .
. the system library of an addx installation
is a service for organizing and linking
the modules that are available for reuse .
. a standard library is a module that is
declared by the system's language .
. a custom library is one added by the user .
. each module has a list of imported modules,
and a tree of symbol tables
to match its tree of nested scopes .
. when designing the pointer that is
going from etree nodes into symbol tables,
there must be an efficient coding,
and it should support efficient copying
even when it involves context changes
(re: adde/object copy & paste).
etree node variants for library symbols:
. there is first a bit to distinguish
symbol location type in {library, local}:
# library location:
. there may be many libraries in use (15-bit),
and many symbols per library (16-bit) .
# local location:
. there's often no more than
4 nested levels of locals (2bit);
and often less than 256 symbols per local (8bit).
but if node`size is in increments of 16bit chunks
that division could be 4 bits for 16 nested scopes,
and an 11-bit space for locals,
or less if the descriminant is more than 1 bit .
[7.30:
... in any case, the more space you save,
the less efficient it is to remap etree nodes
to a new symbol table after a context change .]
details of library location:
. there could be an infinity of libraries over time,
so the library codes in an etree node
don't represent specific libraries,
rather they represent a slot in the module's
list of imported or required libraries;
however, standard libraries can be specified,
since there are a finite number of them;
ie, if the code is in the range that is
reserved for standard lib's,
then that is the same code used by
the system library;
otherwise, we need to use the module's import list
to convert the symbol table's code
into one that the system library recognizes .
. the system library creates a custom lib's code
by taking a Secure Hash of its interface
. as long as that didn't change,
it would be considered the same library .
. etrees (expression trees)
are tree nodes with pointers into
global and local dictionaries of symbols
(symbol tables).
. every etree module
implies access to a global symbol table,
and must specify any needed local symbol tables .
. there can be more than one local symbol table;
because, a dictionary can include procedures;
and, procedure definitions can have
local dictionaries:
the parent procedure becomes the
scope of its local dictionary,
hence the term "(nested scopes),
involving stacks of local symbol tables .
. each module has a tree of symbol tables .
. a typical scope path is:
module/subprog/nested sub/nested block/nested block .
. the 3 main uses of "(library) include
system, standard, and custom .
. the system library of an addx installation
is a service for organizing and linking
the modules that are available for reuse .
. a standard library is a module that is
declared by the system's language .
. a custom library is one added by the user .
. each module has a list of imported modules,
and a tree of symbol tables
to match its tree of nested scopes .
. when designing the pointer that is
going from etree nodes into symbol tables,
there must be an efficient coding,
and it should support efficient copying
even when it involves context changes
(re: adde/object copy & paste).
etree node variants for library symbols:
. there is first a bit to distinguish
symbol location type in {library, local}:
# library location:
. there may be many libraries in use (15-bit),
and many symbols per library (16-bit) .
# local location:
. there's often no more than
4 nested levels of locals (2bit);
and often less than 256 symbols per local (8bit).
but if node`size is in increments of 16bit chunks
that division could be 4 bits for 16 nested scopes,
and an 11-bit space for locals,
or less if the descriminant is more than 1 bit .
[7.30:
... in any case, the more space you save,
the less efficient it is to remap etree nodes
to a new symbol table after a context change .]
details of library location:
. there could be an infinity of libraries over time,
so the library codes in an etree node
don't represent specific libraries,
rather they represent a slot in the module's
list of imported or required libraries;
however, standard libraries can be specified,
since there are a finite number of them;
ie, if the code is in the range that is
reserved for standard lib's,
then that is the same code used by
the system library;
otherwise, we need to use the module's import list
to convert the symbol table's code
into one that the system library recognizes .
. the system library creates a custom lib's code
by taking a Secure Hash of its interface
. as long as that didn't change,
it would be considered the same library .
natively coded extensions
7.22: adda/natively coded extensions:
. the adda compiler helps turn adda code
into obj'c code,
and then the user plugs that into xcode
to generate mac programs .
. there are 2 styles of user programming:
# extending addm:
. the user want's their library unit to be
seen by addm,
so that user's library unit is callable from
user's other scripts .
. this entails compiling the library unit,
recompiling addm to bind with the library unit
and relinking addm with the entire library .
. this is known as pythonic development:
a module is run as translated vm code
until it's perfected:
then it's promoted to native code
and made available in the account's library .
# building native apps:
. in building a native app,
adda code is translated to the native lang
(eg, mac speaks obj'c & cocoa).
. the native program then imports
the relevant adda libraries
and includes addm as a component
so that the program or its user
can run arbitrary adda scripts .
. the adda compiler helps turn adda code
into obj'c code,
and then the user plugs that into xcode
to generate mac programs .
. there are 2 styles of user programming:
# extending addm:
. the user want's their library unit to be
seen by addm,
so that user's library unit is callable from
user's other scripts .
. this entails compiling the library unit,
recompiling addm to bind with the library unit
and relinking addm with the entire library .
. this is known as pythonic development:
a module is run as translated vm code
until it's perfected:
then it's promoted to native code
and made available in the account's library .
# building native apps:
. in building a native app,
adda code is translated to the native lang
(eg, mac speaks obj'c & cocoa).
. the native program then imports
the relevant adda libraries
and includes addm as a component
so that the program or its user
can run arbitrary adda scripts .
object copy & paste
7.14: adde/object copy & paste:
. the typical copy & paste
is a char-string operation;
whereas, an object selection
is operating over etrees (expression trees)
which are tree nodes with pointers into
dictionaries of symbols (symbol tables).
. there can be more than one symbol table;
because, a dictionary can include procedures,
and procedure definitions can have local dictionaries;
hence, a single etree can be within
the scope of multiple dictionaries
represented by stacks of local symbol tables .
. a copy becomes a module
meaning it needs its own copy of
any local symbol tables;
however, the cost of copying
depends on the destination:
if the paste location is within the source's scope
it shares all the same symbol tables .
. when some symbol tables are
not shared between source and destination
those tables must be copied;
and, affected etree nodes adjusted
to point into the new tables .
. when an arbitrary substring is selected
it can be representing fractions of etrees,
eg, given a+b+c, a selection can include
all of term-b and partials of terms {a,c} .
. there may be parts of the given language where
partial terms don't have the same meaning;
ie, there would be nothing but a
char-string translation of the object selection .
. in any case,
the quickest, most general way to define a selection
is to get links to the entire chain of symbol tables;
and, copy the entire subtree that contains
all the fragments of the selection;
then include a descriptor that shows
where the selection is beginning and ending .
. when would you want fragments and still want
the etree object rather than a char string?
for orthogonality,
we have to provide for the possibility
that one of adde's plug-in app's
can find some use for such a selection;
ie, in many cases of user interaction
the selection is for a function other than
cut or copy .
7.15:
. when designing the pointer that is
going from etree nodes into symbol tables,
there must be an efficient coding,
and it should support efficient copying
even when it involves context changes .
. both the source and destination of a copy
have scope paths:
if the scope paths aren't the same
we have to identify any scopes not shared
and copy their symbol tables
for merging with the destination .
if this is a cut instead of a copy,
there are fewer choices,
since the destination space is smaller .
. a complication of multiple nestings of scope
is the orphaned symbol from ancestor scopes:
these imply some sort of communication with
a context which no longer exists .
. we have to remind the user
that the orphan's place in the destination
may need special attention:
should it be added to the new parent scope,
or some higher scope ?
. the default location would be relative height,
ie, the same number of scopes up the path
as it was in the source location .
. in any case, we have to assist the user
in keeping track of these orphan relocations,
and make sure that all affected contexts
are adjusted to create a sensible communication
such that, the role of the source ancestor
is now provided by the new context's procedure .
. the typical copy & paste
is a char-string operation;
whereas, an object selection
is operating over etrees (expression trees)
which are tree nodes with pointers into
dictionaries of symbols (symbol tables).
. there can be more than one symbol table;
because, a dictionary can include procedures,
and procedure definitions can have local dictionaries;
hence, a single etree can be within
the scope of multiple dictionaries
represented by stacks of local symbol tables .
. a copy becomes a module
meaning it needs its own copy of
any local symbol tables;
however, the cost of copying
depends on the destination:
if the paste location is within the source's scope
it shares all the same symbol tables .
. when some symbol tables are
not shared between source and destination
those tables must be copied;
and, affected etree nodes adjusted
to point into the new tables .
. when an arbitrary substring is selected
it can be representing fractions of etrees,
eg, given a+b+c, a selection can include
all of term-b and partials of terms {a,c} .
. there may be parts of the given language where
partial terms don't have the same meaning;
ie, there would be nothing but a
char-string translation of the object selection .
. in any case,
the quickest, most general way to define a selection
is to get links to the entire chain of symbol tables;
and, copy the entire subtree that contains
all the fragments of the selection;
then include a descriptor that shows
where the selection is beginning and ending .
. when would you want fragments and still want
the etree object rather than a char string?
for orthogonality,
we have to provide for the possibility
that one of adde's plug-in app's
can find some use for such a selection;
ie, in many cases of user interaction
the selection is for a function other than
cut or copy .
7.15:
. when designing the pointer that is
going from etree nodes into symbol tables,
there must be an efficient coding,
and it should support efficient copying
even when it involves context changes .
. both the source and destination of a copy
have scope paths:
if the scope paths aren't the same
we have to identify any scopes not shared
and copy their symbol tables
for merging with the destination .
if this is a cut instead of a copy,
there are fewer choices,
since the destination space is smaller .
. a complication of multiple nestings of scope
is the orphaned symbol from ancestor scopes:
these imply some sort of communication with
a context which no longer exists .
. we have to remind the user
that the orphan's place in the destination
may need special attention:
should it be added to the new parent scope,
or some higher scope ?
. the default location would be relative height,
ie, the same number of scopes up the path
as it was in the source location .
. in any case, we have to assist the user
in keeping track of these orphan relocations,
and make sure that all affected contexts
are adjusted to create a sensible communication
such that, the role of the source ancestor
is now provided by the new context's procedure .
tags, link-trees, and file-trees
7.3: 7.30: adde/tags, link-trees, and file-trees:
. how to integrate tags with folder systems?
placing a file in a folder is tagging it;
a hierarchy is a tag with segments;
ie, each path name is one tag .
. while a file can be in only one folder,
it can be assigned to many tags .
. tags can be thought of as
a list of links to its members;
and, equivalently, as attributes of a file:
each file or file link can list all the tags
to which it is a member,
just as it can tell the folder path it's in .
link-trees vs file-trees:
. a file-tree is the usual folder tree,
it contains actual files rather than links;
so, a file can be a member of only one file-tree .
. the link-tree is like a file-tree
except it contains only links to files
rather than actual files;
thus, a file can belong to many link-trees,
and may be in many places
within the same link-tree .
7.30:
. the main idea for these distinctions
is that file-trees are low-level concerns;
the only reason they need to be accessed
is when the space limits require
deletions or archiving .
. most file system operations
are concerned only with organizing files,
not managing limited space,
and each activity should have its own
customized view of the file system;
so, most file accesses should be done
through link-trees .
. tags can be applied to either files or links,
depending on the tag's scope:
tags on files are global;
tags on links apply only to
a specific link-tree;
ie, each link-tree has its own set of tags:
both the ones induced by the global tags
belonging to files it's linking to,
and the tags specified by the
user of the link-tree .
. how to integrate tags with folder systems?
placing a file in a folder is tagging it;
a hierarchy is a tag with segments;
ie, each path name is one tag .
. while a file can be in only one folder,
it can be assigned to many tags .
. tags can be thought of as
a list of links to its members;
and, equivalently, as attributes of a file:
each file or file link can list all the tags
to which it is a member,
just as it can tell the folder path it's in .
link-trees vs file-trees:
. a file-tree is the usual folder tree,
it contains actual files rather than links;
so, a file can be a member of only one file-tree .
. the link-tree is like a file-tree
except it contains only links to files
rather than actual files;
thus, a file can belong to many link-trees,
and may be in many places
within the same link-tree .
7.30:
. the main idea for these distinctions
is that file-trees are low-level concerns;
the only reason they need to be accessed
is when the space limits require
deletions or archiving .
. most file system operations
are concerned only with organizing files,
not managing limited space,
and each activity should have its own
customized view of the file system;
so, most file accesses should be done
through link-trees .
. tags can be applied to either files or links,
depending on the tag's scope:
tags on files are global;
tags on links apply only to
a specific link-tree;
ie, each link-tree has its own set of tags:
both the ones induced by the global tags
belonging to files it's linking to,
and the tags specified by the
user of the link-tree .
binary operation aggregation
7.10: adda/cstr/binary operation aggregation:
. biop's (binary operations)
can be seen as aggregated
by a rule book showing combinations of biops
that should be considered to be
one subprogram call
ie, binding to a particular subprogram;
eg, {?, else} are both biops,
and the rule book would say that
(?, else) is a single function:
?-else(truth,proc,proc).proc
or ?-else(truth,fun,fun).fun .
. biop's (binary operations)
can be seen as aggregated
by a rule book showing combinations of biops
that should be considered to be
one subprogram call
ie, binding to a particular subprogram;
eg, {?, else} are both biops,
and the rule book would say that
(?, else) is a single function:
?-else(truth,proc,proc).proc
or ?-else(truth,fun,fun).fun .
references for security and speed
7.9: adda/oop/references for security and speed:
. notice how oop would rather
create a new object and modify a pointer
than modify the value of a current object .
. I call this the "(pervasive pointers).
. from an encapsulation view there is no diff',
since only the owning type
can do these mod's .
. what it does seem to uniquely do though,
is encourage the sharing of objects;
ie, if you can modify your value
then I have no interest in sharing its object
because it's no longer synonymous with
the intended value at some past time .
--
. oop is doing for every value
what c does only for arrays .
7.10:
. it does promote strong
capability-based security;
because if everything is through reference,
and ref's are encryptable,
then that is a much stronger encapsulation
unless the system is already protected
by allowing only system-compiled code .
7.11:
. another interesting property of
pervasive pointers
is that by comparing pointers,
one can tell quickly whether
even huge structures are identical;
though if the pointers aren't equal,
they might still represent equal values .
. python has a speed hack where the
first 100 ints have reserved pointers
so in the many loops controlled by small ints,
pointer compares are decisive .
. notice how oop would rather
create a new object and modify a pointer
than modify the value of a current object .
. I call this the "(pervasive pointers).
. from an encapsulation view there is no diff',
since only the owning type
can do these mod's .
. what it does seem to uniquely do though,
is encourage the sharing of objects;
ie, if you can modify your value
then I have no interest in sharing its object
because it's no longer synonymous with
the intended value at some past time .
--
. oop is doing for every value
what c does only for arrays .
7.10:
. it does promote strong
capability-based security;
because if everything is through reference,
and ref's are encryptable,
then that is a much stronger encapsulation
unless the system is already protected
by allowing only system-compiled code .
7.11:
. another interesting property of
pervasive pointers
is that by comparing pointers,
one can tell quickly whether
even huge structures are identical;
though if the pointers aren't equal,
they might still represent equal values .
. python has a speed hack where the
first 100 ints have reserved pointers
so in the many loops controlled by small ints,
pointer compares are decisive .
local resource accesses and wrappers
7.3: adda/portability/local resource accesses and wrappers:
. wondering how adda can provide portable features
and yet also provide access to
individual platform features .
. per each platform,
represent its features as a library,
and then map adda's features to that .
. users can expect portability from
staying with the model;
and can get more into their specific platform
by importing the lib's it offers .
. additionally,
there will never be a portable model of
what paths you can modify;
instead, you have to list per system,
what volumes are available,
and whether they are writable or rom .
7.5:
. adda must include all the storage models,
and must map them to diversely contstrained models:
eg, some platform may offer nothing but a database,
so, adda must provide a hierarchical filesystem
that is implemented by a database .
. wondering how adda can provide portable features
and yet also provide access to
individual platform features .
. per each platform,
represent its features as a library,
and then map adda's features to that .
. users can expect portability from
staying with the model;
and can get more into their specific platform
by importing the lib's it offers .
. additionally,
there will never be a portable model of
what paths you can modify;
instead, you have to list per system,
what volumes are available,
and whether they are writable or rom .
7.5:
. adda must include all the storage models,
and must map them to diversely contstrained models:
eg, some platform may offer nothing but a database,
so, adda must provide a hierarchical filesystem
that is implemented by a database .
go's defer statement
7.1: adda/go.lang/defer:
. go.lang has a defer
that is like a type mgt's finalization routine
only it's used by a function
for things that should happen on return .
. ideas I got from that are:
# on return: ... [7.30:
. "(on *condition*) would generally mean
rule-based vs imperative programming;
so (on return: s) would add (s) to
the list of things to do before returning .]
# self`end`+ ... [7.30:
. this is modeled after i`+ 1
which is shorthand for i= i+1 .
. the self is the current subprogram;
it already has an "(end)
listing things to do before ending;
and a (`+) would add to that list .]
. go.lang has a defer
that is like a type mgt's finalization routine
only it's used by a function
for things that should happen on return .
. ideas I got from that are:
# on return: ... [7.30:
. "(on *condition*) would generally mean
rule-based vs imperative programming;
so (on return: s) would add (s) to
the list of things to do before returning .]
# self`end`+ ... [7.30:
. this is modeled after i`+ 1
which is shorthand for i= i+1 .
. the self is the current subprogram;
it already has an "(end)
listing things to do before ending;
and a (`+) would add to that list .]
Ousterhout's dichotomy
7.1: news.adda/Ousterhout's dichotomy:
. John Ousterhout, designer of Tcl,
noticed that high-level programming languages
tend to fall into two groups,
"system programming languages"
and "scripting languages".
[ie you can't have a language that is
optimal for both .
. in defence of that claim,
pypy tried to have a system language Rpython
that was as much as possible like
Python, the scripting lang;
because they wanted
a self-hosting python compiler
ie, one written in python instead of c .
[7.30: like adda,
Rpython is designed to translate into c
for the purpose of avoiding c:
system programmers can use Rpython
yet still take advantage of c compilers .]
. the closest Rpython could get to python
is a subset of it that added static typing;
because, some features that support
coder productivity
are antithetical to features that support
algorithm efficiency .
. Ousterhout was likely pointing out that
scripting lang efficiency was not so important;
because, scripts are glue for
subprograms of sufficient size,
such that most of the run time
is spent in the parts defined by the system lang .
7.30: web:
D. Ancona, M. Ancona, A Cuni, and N. Matsakis.
RPython: a Step Towards Reconciling
Dynamically and Statically Typed OO Languages.
In OOPSLA 2007 Proceedings and Companion, DLS'07:
Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on
Dynamic Languages, pages 53-64. ACM, 2007(pdf)
. John Ousterhout, designer of Tcl,
noticed that high-level programming languages
tend to fall into two groups,
"system programming languages"
and "scripting languages".
[ie you can't have a language that is
optimal for both .
. in defence of that claim,
pypy tried to have a system language Rpython
that was as much as possible like
Python, the scripting lang;
because they wanted
a self-hosting python compiler
ie, one written in python instead of c .
[7.30: like adda,
Rpython is designed to translate into c
for the purpose of avoiding c:
system programmers can use Rpython
yet still take advantage of c compilers .]
. the closest Rpython could get to python
is a subset of it that added static typing;
because, some features that support
coder productivity
are antithetical to features that support
algorithm efficiency .
. Ousterhout was likely pointing out that
scripting lang efficiency was not so important;
because, scripts are glue for
subprograms of sufficient size,
such that most of the run time
is spent in the parts defined by the system lang .
7.30: web:
D. Ancona, M. Ancona, A Cuni, and N. Matsakis.
RPython: a Step Towards Reconciling
Dynamically and Statically Typed OO Languages.
In OOPSLA 2007 Proceedings and Companion, DLS'07:
Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on
Dynamic Languages, pages 53-64. ACM, 2007(pdf)
. an approach that attempts to preserve
the flexibility of Python,
while still allowing for efficient execution
is limiting the use of
the more dynamic features of Python
to an initial, bootstrapping phase.
This phase is used to construct
a final RPython (Restricted Python) program
that is actually executed.
RPython is a proper subset of Python,
is statically typed,
and does not allow dynamic modification
of class or method definitions;
however, it can still take advantage of
Python features such as mixins and
first-class methods and classes.
This paper presents an overview of RPython,
including its design and its translation to
both CLI and JVM bytecode.
We show how the bootstrapping phase can be
used to implement advanced features,
like extensible classes and generative programming.
2011-06-30
enum.typed record domains
6.20: adda/dstr/enum.typed record domains:
. in classic lang's like c,
arrays had very different properties
than records .
. in a polymorphic languages however,
records can be more like arrays;
because, although their components vary in type,
the various types often have the same base type;
eg, all types can print their value, etc .
. and any time a record has at least
2 components of the same type,
it could make sense to specify components with
an expression rather than a literal name,
just as is done for arrays .
today's issue is this:
. in trying to unify the concepts of
arrays and records,
there needs to be a way for records to
express their component names as being
some enumeration-type's subrange;
and then, conversely,
any time a record r declares its components' names,
that should induce an enumeration type:
r`domain
-- I'm using the term "(domain) because
arrays and records are like functions;
and, functions in math are known to
input values from a domain type
and output values from a codomain type;
ie, f: domain -> codomain;
or, in adda:
function f(x.domain).codomain,
array A#(domain).codomain
record R.(r1.co1, r2.co2, r3.co3);
R`domain = {r1, r2, r3};
R`codomain = {co1.type, co2.type, co3.type},
. assume there's the enumeration
e.type: {r1, r2, r3};
how should a record say its domain = e ?
R.(r1.co1, r2.co2, r3.co3);
R`domain`= e ?
[6.23: yes,
that lets the record be defined in the usual way,
and then also say that the domain is
not a new declaration,
but rather a reuse of some existing enum.type .]
mis:
. one thing that wouldn't work is this:
R#(e).{co1.type, co2.type, co3.type} ?
-- that would instead be saying
R is an array of enum;
and each var's possible values
are in the set:
{co1.type, co2.type, co3.type}.
--. this could be useful for when
writing programs that write programs:
many of the values they're concerned about
are parts of languages, including types .
. in classic lang's like c,
arrays had very different properties
than records .
. in a polymorphic languages however,
records can be more like arrays;
because, although their components vary in type,
the various types often have the same base type;
eg, all types can print their value, etc .
. and any time a record has at least
2 components of the same type,
it could make sense to specify components with
an expression rather than a literal name,
just as is done for arrays .
today's issue is this:
. in trying to unify the concepts of
arrays and records,
there needs to be a way for records to
express their component names as being
some enumeration-type's subrange;
and then, conversely,
any time a record r declares its components' names,
that should induce an enumeration type:
r`domain
-- I'm using the term "(domain) because
arrays and records are like functions;
and, functions in math are known to
input values from a domain type
and output values from a codomain type;
ie, f: domain -> codomain;
or, in adda:
function f(x.domain).codomain,
array A#(domain).codomain
record R.(r1.co1, r2.co2, r3.co3);
R`domain = {r1, r2, r3};
R`codomain = {co1.type, co2.type, co3.type},
. assume there's the enumeration
e.type: {r1, r2, r3};
how should a record say its domain = e ?
R.(r1.co1, r2.co2, r3.co3);
R`domain`= e ?
[6.23: yes,
that lets the record be defined in the usual way,
and then also say that the domain is
not a new declaration,
but rather a reuse of some existing enum.type .]
mis:
. one thing that wouldn't work is this:
R#(e).{co1.type, co2.type, co3.type} ?
-- that would instead be saying
R is an array of enum;
and each var's possible values
are in the set:
{co1.type, co2.type, co3.type}.
--. this could be useful for when
writing programs that write programs:
many of the values they're concerned about
are parts of languages, including types .
preventing insecure inputs
6.11: adda/abi/insuring security:
[6.13: intro:
. many app's are a security threat because
they are trusted not to smash the stack or heap,
yet will do so if given mal-formed input;
the primary security defense provided by adda
is that all interactions with the stack or heap
are handled by robust system app's .]
. an app may be expecting ascii
and get unicode instead,
but adda typetags would document what was there,
and then the app could take steps to
convert to the prefered type .
[6.24:
. non-native types can have novel structures;
but they are always compositions of
native elemental type;
and, the addx system is helping app's
to read and write the data they exchange .]
[6.13: intro:
. many app's are a security threat because
they are trusted not to smash the stack or heap,
yet will do so if given mal-formed input;
the primary security defense provided by adda
is that all interactions with the stack or heap
are handled by robust system app's .]
. an app may be expecting ascii
and get unicode instead,
but adda typetags would document what was there,
and then the app could take steps to
convert to the prefered type .
[6.24:
. non-native types can have novel structures;
but they are always compositions of
native elemental type;
and, the addx system is helping app's
to read and write the data they exchange .]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
