[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 22:49:32 +0200 (MEST) |
On 13 Sep 2001, Bill Gribble wrote:
> On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 16:10, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> > These error messages are the reason why the generation of code with
> > TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 is not possible. The trick with TYPING_STRICTNESS set
> > to 2 is to define SCM as a struct. This makes all of C's implicit type
> > conversions impossible and is the reason why this mode allows the best
> > possible type checking by the compiler.
>
> So can we assume that in the "real", "normal" guile libraries, SCM will now
> and
> forever more be of a type suitable for use as a C label? I am pretty shocked
> if
> that's true; I have always assumed that code using SCM constants as
> initializers
> and labels was not guaranteed to work and was in fact broken code. Of course
> I have written plenty of code like that myself :)
Well, I am careful about the 'and forever' but the 'now' is definitely the
way that you describe it. The point is, that there is actually a lot of
code within guile for which we would have to go out of our own way to make
it compile with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2. It's a long time since we have had
these discussions, but unfortunately we could not think of a clean and
easy to use solution. If you have something in mind, don't hesitate to
share it with us :-)
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann