[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-users] Another define bug and a question
From: |
Reed Sheridan |
Subject: |
[Chicken-users] Another define bug and a question |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Jun 2005 22:21:20 -0500 |
A self-explanatory snippet:
#> (define-macro (foo) "foo")
#> (foo)
"foo"
#> (define foo 1)
#> foo
Error: invalid syntax in macro form: foo
#> (foo)
"foo"
#>
That's without the -hygienic flag. With the -hygienic flag, foo is
redefined as 1 as you would expect.
Now for my question for the BDFL: when do you think error checking is
important? When is an unchecked argument a bug and when is it a
performance feature? I would prefer it if everything checked its
arguments and gave an informative error message rather than garbage
output or something like "Error: (car) bad argument type: 1" when the
erroneous input finally reaches a function that checks its arguments 3
stack frames down. But my performance needs are not very demanding,
and since you went for fast and dangerous and disabled argument checks
in SRFI-14 (leading to erroneous output if you give some functions bad
arguments, which I almost reported before realizing that checks were
purposely disabled), it's obvious that my opinion is not unanimous. I
don't want to waste my time or yours with bogus "bug" reports.
Reed Sheridan
- [Chicken-users] Another define bug and a question,
Reed Sheridan <=