[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Tue, 11 May 2004 00:57:35 +0200
> in eval.c might be hard to fix, tho.
> > Also, I think that DEBUG_TYPING_STRICTNESS==0 should go too. The code
> > contained a thinko (leading to loads of compile errors). This
> > suggests that the code has never been tested since its inception a few
> > years ago.
> Can you elaborate? Guile itself compiles fine with STRICTNESS==0.
> Indeed, this strictness level offers no type checking.
# define SCM_PACK(x) ((scm_t_bits) (x))
I believe this should be
#define SCM_PACK(x) ((SCM) (x))
> When I say "type checking" what really mean is that the compiler
> checks whether the user only uses SCM values in the way we want it to,
> like, no direct arithmetic, no direct use in conditional tests, only
What's the rationale for not allowing direct use in conditional tests?
Han-Wen Nienhuys | address@hidden | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
- Re: typechecking, Marius Vollmer, 2004/05/10
- Re: typechecking, Dale P. Smith, 2004/05/10
- Re: typechecking,
Han-Wen Nienhuys <=
- Re: typechecking, Dirk Herrmann, 2004/05/15
- Re: typechecking, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/05/26
- Re: typechecking, Dirk Herrmann, 2004/05/30
- Re: typechecking, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/05/30
- Re: typechecking, Dirk Herrmann, 2004/05/31
- Re: typechecking, Andy Wingo, 2004/05/30