hello,
i'm using bigloo4.2c and have had a similar issue last year,i'm using bigloo
with the java option enabled to generate JVM byte code and i noticed that
when creating string variables with nested define in function ,the code :
(define (ResultatMesuresFbeta bstr_identificateur bstr_objet)
(display-var-nl "BiglooCode.scm :: ResultatMesuresFbeta ::
bstr_identificateur = " bstr_identificateur)
(display-var-nl "BiglooCode.scm :: ResultatMesuresFbeta :: bstr_objet = "
bstr_objet)
(define len_bstr_identificateur (byte*-length bstr_identificateur))
(display-var-nl "BiglooCode.scm :: ResultatMesuresFbeta :: len_identificateur
= " len_bstr_identificateur)
(display-var-nl "BiglooCode.scm :: ResultatMesuresFbeta :: (string?
bstr_identificateur) = " (string? bstr_identificateur))
(define identificateur (make-string len_bstr_identificateur))
;;(define objet "")
(set! identificateur bstr_identificateur)
;;(set! identificateur (string-append bstr_identificateur))
;;(display-var-nl "BiglooCode.scm :: ResultatMesuresFbeta :: (string-append
\"\" bstr_identificateur) = " (string-append "" bstr_identificateur))
;;(set! objet bstr_objet)
i had to set! the variable ,hoping it will works, finally i replaced all the
nested define in function by a let* and it was ok
the code is compiled to generate byte-code running in a tomcat8 server so i did
not post in bigloo list at the time it happened.
Regards,
Damien
Le Wednesday 19 October 2016 09:33:30 Bruant, Michel, vous avez écrit :
> Hi Bigloo team,
>
> We observe an issue with the latest bigloo-4.3 (it was already present in
> the previous beta)
> I have a procedure which has a let* . In this let*, a variable is binded to a
> C function, something like:
> (data (pragma::bstring "string_to_bstring_len( $1, $2 )" [....])
> Then this variable is used in some of the next bindings, and also in the body
> of the let*.
> But at one stage, (in the body if I remember) ; its content is wrong,
> corrupted.
>
> As a workaround, we needed to change this implementation:
> - create a global variable (define data "") ; split the let* into 2 let* and
> add a (set! ...) in between to replace the previous binding.
> ... something a little bit dirty.
> I 'm not sure I can create a small test case to observe this issue; but maybe
> this description is enough ?
> Anyway, If you can find a fix so that we can remove our workaround, it will
> be really appreciated.
> Thanks, regards,
> Michel.
>
>
>
--
[email protected], [email protected], UNS / OCA / CNRS
