[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Broken Backtraces, and Part of a Solution

From: Noah Lavine
Subject: Re: Broken Backtraces, and Part of a Solution
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:47:14 -0400

After looking at it more, there aren't really enough stack functions
to warrant a test suite. Any objections if I push this to master?


On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Noah Lavine <address@hidden> wrote:
> Here's a patch that fixes the bug for me. I'd also like to add a test
> suite for the stack functions, to make sure this doesn't happen again,
> but I'll look at that later.
> Noah
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Andy Wingo <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Wed 18 Apr 2012 18:08, Noah Lavine <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> We need to change to default to consider generic objects as
>>>> eq?-compared prompt tags.
>>> I agree, but you still couldn't use procedures or integers as prompt
>>> tags if you wanted make-stack to work, because those are special
>>> cases.
>> Yeah, but the whole point of prompt tags is that you can make a new one
>> and know that it is eq?-unique, which is not the case for integers.  So
>> integers are not in the general case.  It seems useful to add procedures
>> as a special case too, no?
>>> That's why I thought of just changing the interface to make-stack to
>>> specify what you want - it's such a weird restriction that someone
>>> could be bitten by it and have a lot of trouble tracking it down. And
>>> because an argument can mean three different things, code that uses
>>> make-stack is hard to understand (or at least it was for me).
>> It's something of a nasty interface, I agree.  But it's been around for
>> a long time; if we can make a minimal change, we should, it seems to me.
>> Want to make a patch?
>> Regards,
>> Andy
>> --

reply via email to

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