[Chicken-users] NE [[not exactly]]: handling the undefined value

[F. Wittenberger]

Ups,

sorry.  (interspersed with German -- for [personal] reasons)

not, not sorry, "tut mir Leid" -- was paßt aber genauso irrational ist.

There are obvious things, which are easier to convey face by face and in
native language.

So, spare me, expending my any (especially written AND non-native
explanation) my kidding...

(almost) no kidding follows

Am Samstag, den 20.11.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Felix:
> >> Yes, local mode is used more aggressively recently. It implies that

++

whatever it implies!!

> >> toplevel definitions inside the compilation unit are not modified from
> >> outside (other compilation units or evaluated code). This gives much
> >> more inlining opportunities (which, in turn, gives most performance
> >> improvements). Unfortunately,

Ohne Spaß und Englisch: Das hab' ich alles begriffen.  Und ich wollte
bitte (auch schon vorher -- aber das ist jetzt bitte nicht der nächste
Grund für ein Mißverständnis  ;-) -- mit dem "-local" meine Absicht
ausdrücken, "was auch immer" in Deiner Dokumentation steht (siehe dort -
und völlig egal wie <any_merkmal> es ist) bewußt "verantwortlich
angeordnet" zu haben.  (Du weißt, wer die Konsequenzen "verantwortlich"
genannter Anordnungen zu tragen hat? ;-)

;-)  just to be sure

In this OVERLY serious spirit...
...[5 lines looking like a neighbourhood terrorist collaterally
killed }-]

> >>   (declare (not inline <IDENTIFIER>))
> >> 
> >> which will prevent <IDENTIFIER> from being inlined (either completely,
> >> or by replacing its invocation with a direct call).
> > 
> > THANK YOU VERY MUCH
> > 
> > ;-)
...
> And the compiler does exactly what you tell him/her. `-local' is an
...[16 lines KIA]]

WAIT!  Please.

I, anyway, meant to say: "chicken did everything perfect.

The very thing I wrote "THANK YOU VERY MUCH" (together with the smiley)
for was: *any* comments how to find a path *around* the effect of that
-local-switch!

    I was just surprised about a few definitions,
    which where identical source to a 0.0.2 version difference
    working in a - for me fatal - different way.

...it turned out that chicken now does better according the the above
cited documentation than before.  (Since the -local switch having been
there before does now trigger a "non-bug-but-with-local-still-a-bug".)

So whom should be blame?

A) You, for not delivering a bullet-proofed-and-never-improvable version
of "-local"?

or

B) Me, for not finding the case your first shot did not hit?

> admittedly

ADMITTEDLY

the "or" is meat to be one of the choices.