Re: Syntax checks

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Dirk" == Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

    Dirk> No, certainly not.  However, the evaluator has to check for it.  The
    Dirk> reason is the following:  SCM_CEVAL _must_ be called with a 
non-immediate.  
    Dirk> That means that whereever SCM_CEVAL is to be called with some 
expression,
    Dirk> the special case of an immediate has to be checked before doing the 
actual
    Dirk> call.

    Dirk> In the execution of the 'do body, every expression is checked to be an
    Dirk> immediate, and if it isn't, then SCM_CEVAL is called.  It is this 
kind of
    Dirk> check (and a couple of similar ones) that I try to remove, since it 
slows
    Dirk> down the evaluator.

That sounds fine.

    Dirk> As you may have noticed, I have already started to clean up the 
evaluator
    Dirk> code (although that process is far from finished yet).  The number of 
jump
    Dirk> labels has been reduced, the intra-function communication has been
    Dirk> simplified and the code has been made somewhat easier (IMO) to 
understand.  
    Dirk> Things are going slowly, but they are proceeding :-)

Yes, I had noticed, although I'm not sure I'd call the code
understandable yet :-) (not by me, anyway)  Good luck!

    >> >From the debugging point of view, the requirements are that
    >> 
    >> - breakpoint positions are preserved as code is transformed
    >> 
    >> - when a breakpoint is hit, it is possible to map back from the
    >> transformed breakpoint location to the coordinates of the breakpoint
    >> in the original source.

    Dirk> I have to admit that I have not taken a look at how debugging works.  
If
    Dirk> you agree, we can work together:  Before doing any changes to the
    Dirk> evaluator, I would double check with you.

Sure; the only possible problem is that I don't have much time during
the week these days, so I might slow you down.  I'd be happy to check
things over the weekend.

        Neil