Re: [Chicken-hackers] Folding lolevel bindings

[Evan Hanson]

On 2016-02-22 20:43, Peter Bex wrote:
> There are weird things going on here in any case

Yeah. something to keep in mind if we add such a feature (or rather
when, amirite?).

> So maybe for now we should just require lolevel in the compiler, with
> a clear comment that we're loading it just for the availability of it
> for constant-folding.

I agree. The attached patches do this.

> Is there an easy way to pre-load all available core modules?  That
> would make it easier on maintenance.

Not currently. With enough hammering we could probably get the Makefiles
to do this for us, but I prefer just adding the unit at this point.

> For the record, I don't think catching the error and ignoring it is a
> good fix [...] So the noisy error is probably a good thing and I think
> we should keep it

Agreed.

Evan

0001-Load-lolevel-in-compiler-so-that-foldable-bindings-a.master.patch
Description: Text Data

0001-Load-lolevel-in-compiler-so-that-foldable-bindings-a.chicken-5.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature