flan/test/programs/format.flan
Joseph Ferano 9ce51ba94e One slice over everything with elements, and the warning at the push
as-slice was a warning, not an operation. The input type already decides
which of the two things happens — a Vec can only be borrowed, an array or a
string can only be viewed, and no call site picks between them — so the second
name expressed no choice a reader could make. And it warned at the moment the
view is taken, which is the one moment nothing is wrong; the danger arrives
later, at the push. slice now takes a Vec at all three arities and as-slice
is gone.

(slice v lo) was free, and is the arity the Vec never had: the runtime already
reads a hi of -1 as "to the end", so the tail form passes the caller's lo and
the same -1 — no slot, no length read, no second evaluation. The merge is
entirely in the checker; the Vec path builds the flan_vec_as_slice call it
always built and neither backend has a line about any of it.

A Vec a call returned is refused at every arity, and not for the array's
reason. (slice (mk)) over an array dangles. (slice (make-vec)) does not — the
storage outlives the expression — but the header is a temporary, so nothing
can ever free the block. The refusal says that and names the let.

The name's own refusal sits in ordinary_call after every table, so a program
that defines an as-slice still reaches its own. It reads for somebody who has
never heard of the old name and writes the call back out, spelling each
argument that is a name or a number.

The warning moved to where it bites: BUILT.md gains a section beside the Vec
table and the push row points at it, spec-memory.md's Borrowing says the same.
Investigated and deliberately not built — a diagnostic for a live view at the
push. (reserve v 100) then a slice, a push and a read is correct code under
the contract the spec chose, so any flag on it is a false positive by the
language's own semantics rather than by an approximation. FIX.org has the
finding and the syntactic sketch that does not work.
2026-09-21 09:51:35 +07:00

101 lines
4.6 KiB
Plaintext

;;;; format-f64: a number rendered to a fixed number of decimal places.
;;;;
;;;; The runtime's f64->bytes is snprintf "%g" and there is no precision to
;;;; pass it, so this is the first number formatter in the language that a
;;;; caller can steer. Every case below is one a plausible wrong version gets
;;;; wrong, and three of them are the ones that actually ship broken: the
;;;; carry, where the rounded fraction equals the scale and is not a fraction
;;;; at all; the zero padding, without which 1.005 prints as "1.5"; and the
;;;; sign, which belongs to the number and not to its integer part, because
;;;; -0.5 has an integer part of 0 and 0 carries no sign.
(defn show [x f64 p i32] ()
(let [v (format-f64 x p)]
(println (string (slice v)))
(free v)))
(defn main [] i32
;; The ordinary cases, and the one %g cannot do at all: 1/60 wanted to two
;; places is a frame time, and "%g" answers 0.0166667.
(show 3.14159 2) ; 3.14
(show 0.0166667 2) ; 0.02
(show 1234.5 1) ; 1234.5
(show 2.0 0) ; 2
(show 2.0 3) ; 2.000
;; Rounding is half away from zero at the last digit kept, on both signs.
(show 0.125 2) ; 0.13
(show -0.125 2) ; -0.13
(show 2.5 0) ; 3
(show -2.5 0) ; -3
;; The carry. 0.999995 scaled by 10^5 rounds to exactly 100000, which is the
;; next integer; without the carry this prints "0.100000".
(show 0.999995 5) ; 1.00000
(show 9.99 1) ; 10.0
(show -9.99 1) ; -10.0
(show 0.99 0) ; 1
;; Zero padding. The fraction of 1.005 at three places is 5, and five digits
;; is not the same number as 005.
(show 1.005 3) ; 1.005
(show 1.0001 4) ; 1.0001
(show 7.0 6) ; 7.000000
;; The sign lives on the number, not on the integer part: both of these have
;; an integer part of 0, which i64->bytes renders without a sign.
(show -0.5 2) ; -0.50
(show -0.004 2) ; -0.00
;; -0.0 prints as a plain zero. The sign test is (< x 0.0), which -0.0 fails,
;; and text is not where the sign of a zero should be read from.
(show 0.0 2) ; 0.00
(show -0.0 2) ; 0.00
;; Precision is clamped rather than refused, at both ends.
(show 1.5 -3) ; 2
(show 1.5 40) ; 1.500000000
;; The three inputs with no decimal expansion.
(show (/ 0.0 0.0) 2) ; nan
(show (/ 1.0 0.0) 2) ; inf
(show (/ -1.0 0.0) 2) ; -inf
;; The same three through print, which goes to the runtime's %g rather than
;; to format-f64, and the first of them is here for a reason the other two
;; are not. A NaN carries a sign bit that no arithmetic chose: LLVM folds
;; (/ 0.0 0.0) at compile time and answers the positive one, divsd answers
;; the negative one at run time, and "%g" prints the difference. So this
;; line printed "nan" through one backend and "-nan" through the other for
;; the same source, and disagreed with the (show ...) above it inside either
;; one. flan_f64_to_bytes now renders any NaN unsigned, which is what
;; format-f64 always did. An infinity still prints signed: there the sign is
;; the value, and both backends were always agreed about it.
(print (/ 0.0 0.0)) (println "") ; nan
(print (/ 1.0 0.0)) (println "") ; inf
(print (/ -1.0 0.0)) (println "") ; -inf
;; Past 9e18 an f64 has no fractional bits and the integer part does not fit
;; in an i64, so this falls back to %g rather than approximating.
(show 1e20 2) ; 1e+20
;; A large magnitude that does fit, where the fraction is genuinely gone: an
;; f64 has no bits below 1 up there, so the padding produces the zeros.
(show 1234567890123.0 2) ; 1234567890123.00
;; And the thing it is for: a formatted number inside a built string, which
;; needs the integer part copied out before the fraction is rendered, because
;; both come through the runtime's one shared scratch buffer.
(let [b (vec-new u8)]
(append (addr b) (bytes-view "fps "))
(let [f (format-f64 59.94 1)]
(append (addr b) (slice f))
(free f))
(append (addr b) (bytes-view " / frame "))
(let [f (format-f64 0.0166667 4)]
(append (addr b) (slice f))
(free f))
(println (string (slice b))) ; fps 59.9 / frame 0.0167
(free b))
0)