Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question

[Jon Herron]

Cool, thanks for the push.  I'll get by on return until the time comes to 
switch over to the other method that you mentioned.

Thanks,

Jon



----- Original Message ----
From: Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
To: Jon Herron <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 5:06:39 PM
Subject: Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question

On Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:40, Jon Herron <address@hidden> writes:

>   In some late night hacking this evening/morn I came across a question
> in (language tree-il compile-glil) - should line 126 read ((return . 1)
> . return) instead of ((return . 1) return)?

Indeed, it appears that way. I have fixed and pushed, thanks for the
note!

Return is a hack, though; I would rather express returns using prompt
and abort, with some tree-il inliner logic to simplify some cases. But I
was in a rush, so return is how it is.

I'll be updating tree-il and vm docs to correspond to reality this
weekend.

Cheers,

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/