Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value

[F. Wittenberger]

Am Freitag, den 26.11.2010, 11:03 -0500 schrieb Felix:
> > The "style" warning I'd like to avoid if all possible.
> 
> Me too.
> 
> > 
> > I'd rather vote for changing the syntax definitions (one-by-one, tell me
> > the git/svn/wtf reference and I'll try my best).
> 
> Don't bother with it. There are quite a number of situations where 
> a a conditional with an undefined branch must appear in tail-position.

Well, if it was a compiler switch, off by default, it should not do
harm.  Would it?

Wrt. the "don't bother": Once I had to "compile" a huge amount of
documents (the BTX documentation) from a very low level markup (which
was fortunately used in a very style-guide-driven way into a higher
level markup (docbook actually).  At a point I learned, that it can be
more efficient to go manually through a huge amount of files an check
for a certain pattern, the custom made "compiler" will not understand.
I mean: ' can do this again.

> > I see.  I understand: could be as efficient, but that would need quite a
> > lot of other changes.  Right?
> > 
> 
> Yes, a lot of changes.

I a way -  I have to admit; and for whatever it's worth - I feel
compelled to learn where those changes came into play.