Hi Ludovic, On Mon 21 Sep 2009 11:08, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi, > > Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > >> ------------------------- module/language/assembly.scm >> ------------------------- >> index 683da6c..95f8a2d 100644 >> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ >> (+ 1 *len-len* (string-length str))) >> ((load-array ,bv) >> (+ 1 *len-len* (bytevector-length bv))) >> - ((load-program ,nargs ,nrest ,nlocs ,labels ,len ,meta . ,code) >> + ((load-program _ _ _ _ ,len ,meta . _) >> (+ 1 *program-header-len* len (if meta (1- (byte-length meta)) 0))) >> ((,inst . _) (guard (>= (instruction-length inst) 0)) >> (+ 1 (instruction-length inst))) >> >> >> This is a bad change IMO. We should not contort our code to please some >> mechanical idea of "good style". > > Oops, I actually agree with this one. Probably I should not have > committed it before discussion, or at least in a separate, easily > revertable commit. I apologize for not doing so. > > I can revert the offending parts, which are all ‘pmatch’ invocations. > Would that be OK with you? That would be great. > That said, in many cases unused variables are a sign of sloppiness IMO, > which was the reason I looked into it. However, having unused variables > “for style” and unused variables introduced by macros makes it harder to > identify “really unused” variables. Yes, agreed with all of this. Thanks! (And apologies if I sounded grumpy. Perhaps I had mailed before coffee ;-) Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
