Re: suppress_checking

[Ken Raeburn]

On Oct 29, 2007, at 15:06, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> I always run with -DENABLE_CHECKING and I do know of one significant
> side-effect: it requires a bit more than 1.3MB of purespace (as  
> opposed
> 1.17MB without it).

Interesting.

If we care, it would be possible to go after certain side effects  
like this and rewrite the original code so that the XSTRING etc  
macros are always invoked with side-effect-free expressions.  I can  
think of at least three or four ways to tackle the problem, with  
varying degrees of difficulty.  The question is, do we care....

Ken