[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604
From: |
megane |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604 |
Date: |
Sun, 19 May 2019 10:07:59 +0300 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.0; emacs 25.1.1 |
address@hidden writes:
[...]
>
> Shouldn't the types.db specialization for scheme#= be applied
> here? Or can't it figure out the ffixnum types of the arguments?
> Even though it is slightly dangerous, the scrutinizer _could_ assume
> arguments to numerical primitives are fixnums in fixnum mode...
That's right, the scrutinizer can't figure out the types. The type of n
for the first scheme#= call is *. The call enforces the type to number.
So the second scheme#= is called with (number fixnum). There's no
specialization for that either.
Wouldn't that kind of assuming lead to hard to debug bugs?
If the scrutinizer could infer types for functions then I think that
would be fine. You'd get a warning somewhere.
>
> felix
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604,
megane <=
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, Peter Bex, 2019/05/19
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/20
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, Peter Bex, 2019/05/20
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/20
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, Peter Bex, 2019/05/20
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Mostly fix #1604, felix . winkelmann, 2019/05/20