Try to compile this code, csc will complain about a known
procedure called with the wrong number of arguments:
(let ((x (lambda (y) (+ y 1 (x 2 3))
Now try this equivalent code, csc will happily accept it.
(Thus converting the compile-time error into a run-time error.)
((lambda (x) (x 2
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
On May 22 2013, Peter Bex wrote:
We already knew the SRFI implementations shipped with CHICKEN are
extremely inefficient. It's been a plan to rewrite some of them
using faster internal versions for a while. Also, the design of
SRFI-1 and SRFI-13 is pretty
On May 24 2013, John Cowan wrote:
I've always thought that case-lambda should be built into the core,
so that simple tail recursions, like this:
(define foo (case-lambda
((bar baz) ...)
((baz) (foo #f baz
can be rewritten as a varargs function with appropriate internal jumps,
without
Hm. At the moment I'm short of imagination how much overhead these
internal jumps would incur. I can't yet imagine that those would be
for free. Could they?
If I follow John's intention, then it could look something like a switch
statement or a series of elseif branches involving simple
* Moritz Heidkamp mor...@twoticketsplease.de [130525 01:49]:
The private repository path tests didn't work when run from inside a
path containing symlinks because runtests.sh didn't expand symlinks
while the -private-repository mechanism does. This lead the test
assertion which compares the
On Sat, 25 May 2013 02:01:24 +0200 Christian Kellermann ck...@pestilenz.org
wrote:
* Moritz Heidkamp mor...@twoticketsplease.de [130525 01:49]:
The private repository path tests didn't work when run from inside a
path containing symlinks because runtests.sh didn't expand symlinks
while the
OK, I didn't see this because it wasn't attached to the ticket. I posted an
alternate patch on #1014 which just addresses the old data problem in
string-time. As far as I can tell, the various uses of C_tm can not interfere
with each other and all one needs to do is initialize C_tm to a sane
