[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing |
Date: |
Sat, 05 Jan 2013 00:16:21 +0100 (CET) |
> Actually, if you want to write portable code you must, and you must also
> wrap it in inexact->exact. However, since the FFI isn't portable anyway
> it won't matter that much, except when if decide to switch to supporting
> bignums in core. When that happens, all code that doesn't round and
> convert to exact will break unless we decide to keep this for backwards
> compat for a while. But eventually it'll break.
I don't write portable code, and a switch to supporting bignums in the
core-system is not decided on, yet.
>
>> This doesn't feel right to me, but I'll push the modified patch, if you
>> insist,
>> because I can't bring up more convincing arguments. It just doesn't feel
>> right...
>
> Why doesn't it feel right? (vector-ref (vector 1 2 3 4) 1.5) shouldn't
> work, why then should ((foreign-lambda void do-something int) 1.5),
> especially considering vector-ref could reasonably be defined as this:
>
> (lambda (v i)
> (check-type 'vector v)
> ((foreign-lambda scheme-object C_block_item scheme-object int) v i))?
>
Because these are two completely different things, and you know that.
cheers,
felix