Am Donnerstag, den 25.11.2010, 22:34 +0100 schrieb Felix: > 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').
Sadly. The "style" warning I'd like to avoid if all possible. I'd rather vote for changing the syntax definitions (one-by-one, tell me the git/svn/wtf reference and I'll try my best). > > 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. I see. I understand: could be as efficient, but that would need quite a lot of other changes. Right? _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
