Chapter 13's limits table said 4096 array elements "in total", Chapter 16 said
an instance's fields come out of the same pool and nothing is reclaimed, and
Chapter 14's pool table listed `AKBASIC_MAX_ARRAY_VALUES` with no note about
what does and does not draw from it. All three were written when a scalar drew
from that pool, and all three now understate what a program may do.
Each gains the same two facts in the register it is written in. Chapter 13: a
scalar does not come out of the 4096, so creating one inside a `GOSUB` or a
`FOR` -- the loop counter included -- costs nothing, while a `DIM` inside a
scope does and is not given back. Chapter 16: scalars are the exception, and
"nothing is reclaimed" is what lets a pointer into a record stay sound after its
scope has gone -- which is the reason arrays and structures still spend.
Chapter 14: a row for the variable's own storage, and a paragraph on why the
value pool is the one budget that needs a second sentence.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
No behaviour change, by decision. `A# * 0.45` is 0 and `0.45 * A#` is 1.35,
because every operator branches on `self->valuetype` and converts the right
operand to match. It is inherited from the Go reference, a C128 promotes to
float instead, and this interpreter is at least consistent about it -- so a
dialect saying the left operand wins is a defensible position, and changing it
to promotion would alter the result of every mixed expression in every existing
program.
**The defect was that nobody said so.** Chapter 3's "Numbers" did not mention
it, Chapter 13 did not list it among the differences, and nothing fails when a
program gets it wrong -- it computes something else and carries on. The game in
examples/ lost its per-level speed increase to `5.6 + LEVEL# * 0.45` evaluating
to a flat 5.6, and bled velocity out of every bounce through `0 - BLVX%(B#)`
quantising to whole pixels. Both read correctly. Neither produced a diagnostic.
Now said in three places: a section in Chapter 3 with the demonstration and the
two rules that keep a program out of it (put the float on the left, put the
answer somewhere with a `%` on it), a row in Chapter 13 naming it as the
difference from 7.0 most likely to turn a working listing into a quietly wrong
one, and the reasoning on value.h where the operators are declared.
tests/value_arithmetic.c pins it in both directions across multiply and
subtract, with a comment saying it is the documented contract rather than an
accident -- so promotion becomes a decision somebody takes deliberately rather
than a change that could slip in under a passing suite.
TODO.md section 9 item 4, struck as a documentation outcome.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
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>
docs/16-structures.md is the feature: records, nesting, copy-on-assign, strict
pointers, lists, what is checked and what is not, and how a host shares its own
C structs. Every example in it is executed by docs_examples and byte-compared,
including the refusals -- so a message that changes fails the suite rather than
quietly making the chapter wrong.
The chapter makes one contrast explicitly, because it is the question a reader
will actually have: a misspelled *field* is refused and a misspelled *variable*
still prints zero. The rule underneath is that what the program declared gets
checked and what it did not gets shrugged at -- a variable's name is never
declared, a TYPE's field list is. Structures end up the strictest thing in the
language, not from a higher standard but because they are the only named thing
whose valid spellings are written down.
Chapter 14 gains the layout: an instance is a contiguous run of value slots with
a diagram of where the fields sit, the three-pass prescan and why each pass
exists, why the copy cannot live in akbasic_value_clone(), and why the render
depth bound is four rather than eight. Chapter 3 gains the @ suffix, chapter 13
records that all of this is an addition BASIC 7.0 has nothing like, and the verb
reference gains TYPE, POINT and DIM ... AS.
MAINTENANCE.md gains the two rules that are on a maintainer rather than on a
test: a structure copy must not go through clone, and a field chain gets its own
leaf field. TODO.md section 5 records what was invented and the three limits
that are ours, and section 8 records the two defects the work exposed.
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>
The graphics verbs documented a coordinate transform that did not exist. With
SCALE off a coordinate went straight to akgl_draw_* as a pixel address, so an
800x600 window drew a C128 listing into its corner and left the rest unused --
while the chapter said coordinates were 320x200 and stretching to fit was the
host's business.
akbasic_GraphicsBackend gains a size entry point, require_graphics() asks it
before every verb that draws so a resized window is honoured between two
statements, and 320x200 becomes the fallback for a backend that leaves it NULL.
It is the record's one optional member, so a host written against the old header
keeps the behaviour it had.
SCALE now maps onto the device, and RGR(1)/RGR(2) report the drawing surface so
a program can use a window whose size it did not choose. RGR(0) is BASIC 7.0's
own field, the GRAPHIC mode.
SCALE also mapped xmax onto the width rather than onto the last pixel, so
SCALE 1, 319, 199 followed by DRAW 1, 319, 199 drew nothing at all -- one pixel
past the surface. Fixed in the same line, because it is what makes "SCALE gives
a C128 listing the whole window" true rather than nearly true.
The akgl test renders against a 128x128 target, deliberately smaller than the
old constants: a SCALE still dividing by them misses it entirely rather than
landing somewhere plausible.
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>
