Re: better error messages through assertions

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> skribis:

> Here we see the first procedure which is the thunk that wraps the
> expression.  Then in the beginning of the procedure at L7 you can see
> there is a check for struct?, which has to be dominated by a true
> heap-object? check.  Duplicate checks are elided.  So if SRFI-9 added a
> `struct?` check it wouldn't be more code; rather it would be less,
> actually, because instead of branching to L38, you'd branch to L37.

Oh very nice, thanks for the explanation!  That ‘,optimize-cps’ command
proves useful.

So we can have better error reports with no performance penalty,
Philip.  Way to go!

Ludo’.