From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:24:01 +0100
> Am Mittwoch, den 24.11.2010, 18:53 +0100 schrieb Felix: >> From: Jörg "F. Wittenberger" <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] handling the undefined value >> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:08:46 +0100 >> >> > Have a compiler switch (since it may break some code), which changes the >> > code to return zero values instead of the distinguished undefined value. >> >> I don't think this is a great idea: this will change the >> semantics of code using call-with-values, > > So far I did not come around to test, whether or not I'll be able to > find my undefined value with the new scrutinizer version. Unfortunately I had to disable this feature again. We probably need some sort of "style" warning switch (there are too many places where procedures without result or undefined result use forms like `when'). > > Otherwise I'm aware that this would change semantics. Hence I'd only > propose it as a switch. > >> will be less efficient, > > This however I don#t understand. Why would it be less efficient to call > a continuation with zero instead of one value? There is a bit of wrapping and result-value count checking going on behind the scenes in that case. cheers, felix _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
