[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2?
From: |
Bill Gribble |
Subject: |
Re: Shouldn't we be developing with TYPING_STRICTNESS=2? |
Date: |
13 Sep 2001 16:45:51 -0500 |
On Thu, 2001-09-13 at 16:10, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> These error messages are the reason why the generation of code with
> TYPING_STRICTNESS=2 is not possible. The trick with TYPING_STRICTNESS set
> to 2 is to define SCM as a struct. This makes all of C's implicit type
> conversions impossible and is the reason why this mode allows the best
> possible type checking by the compiler.
So can we assume that in the "real", "normal" guile libraries, SCM will now and
forever more be of a type suitable for use as a C label? I am pretty shocked
if
that's true; I have always assumed that code using SCM constants as initializers
and labels was not guaranteed to work and was in fact broken code. Of course
I have written plenty of code like that myself :)
thanks
b.g.