Chapter 2 gets the rule and the refusal, chapter 4 gets the payoff for
LABEL, chapter 9 says DSAVE writes the numbers it handed out and to
RENUMBER first if you want gaps, chapter 10 shows a host loading numberless
source, chapter 13 gets the QuickBASIC-shaped divergence, and chapter 14's
source[] passage gets its second half.
Chapter 14 said "two prescans" and listed two; there were three before this
and there are four now, so it lists all four and says which of them reports
against the right line.
TODO.md section 6 records four things found on the way and deliberately not
fixed: set_label() filing into the active scope rather than the root, three
prescans reporting the wrong line number, duplicate written line numbers
still replacing silently, and renumber.c's file-scope scratch arrays.
examples/embed.c runs the same program twice, numbered and not, so the
example compiles the feature rather than describing it. Its header pointed
at ./build/examples/embed, which is not where the binary lands.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ER# held numbers nothing explained. The appendix lists the four error classes
the interpreter prints, the eight codes it owns and what raises each, and the
codes that reach ER# from errno, libakerror and libakgl underneath it.
The table is not asserted. A program in the chapter trips seven of the eight and
prints what it got, and docs_examples byte-compares the result -- so the numbers
are checked rather than claimed. The eighth, 516, is not usefully trappable and
the chapter says why: entering a handler takes a scope, and the pool being empty
is what raised it.
Two things worth a reader's attention came out of writing it. Two codes register
the same ERR() text, so a program must compare the number and print the text.
And VAL reports libakerror's Value Error rather than the interpreter's 517,
which makes that number the platform's rather than ours -- filed as section 6
item 21, not fixed here, because deciding which libakstdlib failures to
translate is a boundary question and ENOENT out of DOPEN is the counter-case.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
docs/ and README.md carry 85 fenced blocks. Every one was checked by hand
exactly once, when it was written, which is not a standard that survives a
changing interpreter -- and four were already wrong: two transcripts showing a
leading space PRINT does not emit, akbasic_TextSink in README.md missing the
two members it had grown hours earlier, and FILTER's refusal quoted with
wording the code does not use.
tests/docs_examples.sh reads a fence-tag vocabulary and runs what it finds.
BASIC programs and transcripts run and are byte-compared against an `output`
block; C snippets compile with -fsyntax-only against the real include path,
which CMake writes out because it is transitive through akerror, akstdlib and
akgl; shell blocks run in a sandbox. Anything that would reconfigure the build
tree, hit the network or re-enter the suite is tagged norun with the reason in
MAINTENANCE.md, and the two cmake blocks stay hand-maintained by decision.
An untagged block is a failure rather than a default, and the pass line
reports what it executed by kind. Both exist because the way a harness like
this dies is by quietly matching nothing and passing -- which it duly did on
the first CTest run, where a generator expression evaluating to nothing still
contributed an empty argument that the script read as a filename. The count is
what caught it.
The excerpt check earns its own mention: a block tagged
`c excerpt=include/akbasic/sink.h` must still appear in that header, comments
and whitespace ignored. Compiling it would only redefine the type, so a
compile check could not have found the stale struct, and did not.
Registered as the CTest case docs_examples in both configurations. Fixing the
four wrong examples turned up two interpreter defects, fixed in the previous
commit and recorded in TODO.md section 8.
MAINTENANCE.md is new: the fence-tag reference, what to do when the case
fails, and the conventions that until now only existed inside source comments
-- the three test lists and how two of them invert "passed", the sorted verb
table, that a golden file is never edited to suit this interpreter, and that a
fix gets mutation-checked with a file copy rather than git checkout.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Organised the way the C128 Programmer's Reference Guide is: the language
first, then each hardware area, then the reference sections. One markdown
file per chapter.
The verb and function references are generated from the interpreter's own
dispatch table, with an assertion that every row is described, so they cannot
drift out of step with what the program accepts. 98 verbs and 30 functions.
Every example was run before it was written down, which caught three claims
that were wrong: a whole FOR loop on one line prints nothing rather than
looping once, MID and INSTR count from zero where a C128 counts from one, and
a multi-line DEF returns a value the caller has to assign away.
Chapter 13 is the list a BASIC 7.0 programmer needs -- roughly sixty
documented differences, including the two known FOR defects and the fact that
drawing does not survive a frame.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
