On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Alex Queiroz <asand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Alex Shinn <alexsh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Wow, if you've got a magical Scheme compiler that >> can read my mind and fix all my bugs for me I'll switch >> right now! :) >> > > Are you really saying that it is ok for a Scheme program to crash > with a segmentation fault because of programming errors, and not just > because of compiler bugs?
No, and I never said nor implied that. I think the continuum here is, all else being equal: raise continuable exception > abort with meaningful message > segfault though often all else is not equal. For the specific case of handling programs which use unbounded stack, most implementations just blow up, and the question is how heap do they allocate in the process. Are they optimistic and think "it can't be much longer now" as they allocate that last 100MB, or do they bail out a little earlier? Whether you set a fixed limit or just let it use up all available memory, there is still a limit. Setting a separate limit does leave you with some heap space to try to recover with, though, and is friendlier to other processes. But "now we're just negotiating the price." -- Alex _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users