[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Fix #1227 and simplify "parameterize" macro a bit
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] Fix #1227 and simplify "parameterize" macro a bit |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:58:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> The fix is as I mentioned in the ticket: We change the semantics of
> parameter object procedures a bit. Instead of accepting a "hidden"
> extra argument which indicates the guard procedure should be skipped,
> we add another argument which indicates that the parameter should not
> be set.
About this: I didn't do it as in the ticket for compatibility reasons:
the compiler and runtime library itself uses "parameterize", and if we
change the way parameter procedures work, that will result in a compiler
that won't work against the new library.
This is unfortunate, because the current approach makes user errors more
likely: if you accidentally pass more than one argument to a parameter
object's procedure, it will do the wrong thing. I don't really know how
we can change this without causing bootstrap breakage, though. Ideas on
how to do this are welcome!
Cheers,
Peter
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature