[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


From: Mikael Djurfeldt
Subject: Re: SCM_ASSYNT
Date: 05 Mar 2001 03:10:35 +0100

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> currently I am trying to get rid of the function scm_wta, which is a
> strange entry point for a couple of error signalling functions.  Doing
> that, I stumbled across the macro SCM_ASSYNT, which is defined exactly
> as SCM_ASSERT is.

There is the point that we, in the future, might want to treat
(report) errors in primitive macros differently than other errors.
(Might want to say "syntax error" or something like that, maybe
another tag.)

Replacing SCM_ASSYNT with SCM_ASSERT throughout the code removes
information from the source...

Just a point.  Not sure how important it is in this case, though...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]