Commit Graph

10 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
James Shubin
cede7e5ac0 lang: Structurally refactor type unification
This will make it easier to add new solvers and also cleans up some
pending issues.
2024-03-30 16:55:20 -04:00
James Shubin
90f6d4e563 legal: Update http to https 2024-03-05 01:05:50 -05:00
James Shubin
3e31ee9455 legal: Additional permission under GNU GPL version 3 section 7
With the recent merging of embedded package imports and the entry CLI
package, it is now possible for users to build in mcl code into a single
binary. This additional permission makes it explicitly clear that this
is permitted to make it easier for those users. The condition is phrased
so that the terms can be "patched" by the original author if it's
necessary for the project. For example, if the name of the language
(mcl) changes, has a differently named new version, someone finds a
phrasing improvement or a legal loophole, or for some other
reasonable circumstance. Now go write some beautiful embedded tools!
2024-03-05 01:04:09 -05:00
James Shubin
a8f194259b legal: Happy 2024 everyone...
Done with:

ack '2023+' -l | xargs sed -i -e 's/2023+/2024+/g'

Checked manually with:

git add -p

Hello to future James from 2025, and Happy Hacking!
2024-01-22 15:52:49 -05:00
James Shubin
6769786241 lang: unification: Add equiv matching and resultant equalities
The set of initial invariants that we see might include:

	?8 = func(inputs []int, function  ?4) ?3
	?8 = func(inputs []int, function ?10) ?9
	?8 = func arg0   []int, arg1      ?6) ?7

From this we can infer that since they are all equal, that we also know
that ?4, ?10 and ?6 must also be equal. The same is true of ?3, ?9 and
?10. Those new equalities are sometimes necessary in order to complete
the full unification.

The second interesting aspect is when we have dissimilar equalities:

	?2  = func(x  ?1) str
	?4  = func(a int) ?5
	?10 = func(a int) ?11

In this example we also have an additional equality:

	?6 = ?2

From this and the above we can determine that ?2, ?4, ?6 and ?10 are all
equal. We only know about ?4, ?6, and ?10 from the direct relationship,
and we add in ?2 from the indirect (graph) relationship. These
relationships let us determine new information that ?5 and ?11 are both
str and that ?1 is an int.

Two important reminders:

1) Arg names don't have to match. It would impossible to build such a
   system where this was both possible, but also let us name our
   functions sanely.

2) None of this guarantees we won't find an inconsistency in our
   solution. If this is found, it simply means that someone wrote code
   which does not type check.
2023-08-22 15:55:48 -04:00
James Shubin
a7624a2bf9 legal: Happy 2023 everyone...
Done with:

ack '2022+' -l | xargs sed -i -e 's/2022+/2023+/g'

Checked manually with:

git add -p

Hello to future James from 2024, and Happy Hacking!
2023-03-05 18:31:52 -05:00
James Shubin
3cea422365 legal: Happy 2022 everyone...
Done with:

ack '2021+' -l | xargs sed -i -e 's/2021+/2022+/g'

Checked manually with:

git add -p

Hello to future James from 2023, and Happy Hacking!
2022-08-05 23:06:27 -04:00
James Shubin
336a38081a legal: Happy 2021 everyone...
Done with:

ack '2020+' -l | xargs sed -i -e 's/2020+/2021+/g'

Checked manually with:

git add -p

Hello to future James from 2022, and Happy Hacking!
2021-01-31 16:52:46 -05:00
James Shubin
2648fb1bb1 legal: Happy 2020 everyone...
Done with:

ack '2019+' -l | xargs sed -i -e 's/2019+/2020+/g'

Checked manually with:

git add -p

Hello to future James from 2021, and Happy Hacking!
2020-01-03 20:08:37 -05:00
James Shubin
d70bbfb5d0 lang: unification: Improve type unification algorithm
The simple type unification algorithm suffered from some serious
performance and memory problems when used with certain code bases. This
adds some crucial optimizations that improve performance drastically.
2019-04-23 21:21:42 -04:00