[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Nov 2010 22:34:13 +0100 (CET) |
From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:24:01 +0100
> Am Mittwoch, den 24.11.2010, 18:53 +0100 schrieb Felix:
>> From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <address@hidden>
>> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value
>> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:08:46 +0100
>>
>> > Have a compiler switch (since it may break some code), which changes the
>> > code to return zero values instead of the distinguished undefined value.
>>
>> I don't think this is a great idea: this will change the
>> semantics of code using call-with-values,
>
> So far I did not come around to test, whether or not I'll be able to
> find my undefined value with the new scrutinizer version.
Unfortunately I had to disable this feature again. We probably need
some sort of "style" warning switch (there are too many places where
procedures without result or undefined result use forms like `when').
>
> Otherwise I'm aware that this would change semantics. Hence I'd only
> propose it as a switch.
>
>> will be less efficient,
>
> This however I don#t understand. Why would it be less efficient to call
> a continuation with zero instead of one value?
There is a bit of wrapping and result-value count checking going on
behind the scenes in that case.
cheers,
felix
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/18
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/19
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/20
- [Chicken-users] NE [[not exactly]]: handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/21
- [Chicken-users] Re: NE [[not exactly]]: handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/22
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/22
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, John Cowan, 2010/11/24
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/25
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value,
Felix <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/25
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/26
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, Felix, 2010/11/27
- Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value, F. Wittenberger, 2010/11/29