Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 13 Sep 2001, Bill Gribble wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 16:10, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> > These error messages are the reason why the generation of code with
> > TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 is not possible.  The trick with TYPING_STRICTNESS set
> > to 2 is to define SCM as a struct.  This makes all of C's implicit type
> > conversions impossible and is the reason why this mode allows the best
> > possible type checking by the compiler. 
> 
> So can we assume that in the "real", "normal" guile libraries, SCM will now 
> and
> forever more be of a type suitable for use as a C label?  I am pretty shocked 
> if 
> that's true; I have always assumed that code using SCM constants as 
> initializers
> and labels was not guaranteed to work and was in fact broken code.  Of course
> I have written plenty of code like that myself :) 

Well, I am careful about the 'and forever' but the 'now' is definitely the
way that you describe it.  The point is, that there is actually a lot of
code within guile for which we would have to go out of our own way to make
it compile with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2.  It's a long time since we have had
these discussions, but unfortunately we could not think of a clean and
easy to use solution.  If you have something in mind, don't hesitate to
share it with us :-)

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann