Re: [Chicken-hackers] testcase -strict-types

[Felix]

From: John Cowan <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] testcase -strict-types
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:14:49 -0400

> Felix scripsit:
> 
>> Strict-types means you declare that variables never change their type,
>> once a type has been inferred (or explicitly declared). 
> 
> That sounds like an excellent feature.  But in that case, if the known
> procedure `null?` is being called on an expression whose type is known
> to be the type of (), the call should be replaced with #t, and if it is
> known *not* to be the type of (), the call should be replaced with #f.
> In neither case should it be a compile-time error to invoke `null?`
> in that circumstance, and I don't understand why it currently is.

It's not a compile-time error, just a warning. The code violates the
assumptions that -strict-types apply. I'm not sure how to put it
differently.


cheers,
felix