[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2? |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:55:23 +0200 (MEST) |
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Rob Browning wrote:
> As a temporary fix in the tree I'm hacking on, I did this, but I
> wasn't sure if it was at all correct...
>
> if (SCM_EQ_P (SCM_PACK(SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME), sym_base))
Well, it's not too bad :-) It might be better, though, to have the
SCM_PACK be part of the SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME macro as in the cases
below. But, this solution is only preferable if SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME is
really always treated as a SCM value. Otherwise putting the SCM_PACK into
the macro would require to use SCM_UNPACK at other uses of
SCM_SHOW_FILE_NAME.
> I did this in eval.h (which was also a guess):
>
> -#define SCM_ENTER_FRAME_HDLR (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[4].val)
> -#define SCM_APPLY_FRAME_HDLR (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[5].val)
> -#define SCM_EXIT_FRAME_HDLR (SCM)(scm_evaluator_trap_table[6].val)
> +#define SCM_ENTER_FRAME_HDLR (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[4].val))
> +#define SCM_APPLY_FRAME_HDLR (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[5].val))
> +#define SCM_EXIT_FRAME_HDLR (SCM_PACK(scm_evaluator_trap_table[6].val))
As described above, this is a nice fix if the macros are treated as SCM
values everywhere. Still, it should not prevent us from looking into the
options implementation some time...
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann