Re: typechecking

[Han-Wen Nienhuys]

address@hidden writes:
> 
> in eval.c might be hard to fix, tho.
> 
> > Also, I think that DEBUG_TYPING_STRICTNESS==0 should go too. The code
> > contained a thinko (leading to loads of compile errors).  This
> > suggests that the code has never been tested since its inception a few
> > years ago.
> 
> Can you elaborate?  Guile itself compiles fine with STRICTNESS==0.
> Indeed, this strictness level offers no type checking.

1.6.4 has

  #   define SCM_PACK(x) ((scm_t_bits) (x))

I believe this should be

  #define SCM_PACK(x) ((SCM) (x))

if anything.

> When I say "type checking" what really mean is that the compiler
> checks whether the user only uses SCM values in the way we want it to,
> like, no direct arithmetic, no direct use in conditional tests, only

What's the rationale for not allowing direct use in conditional tests?


-- 

 Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   address@hidden   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen