On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 08:32:31PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> The attached patch fixes this by only allowing this specialisation
> for lists that are known to be proper. This means anything that
> ends with a smashed component, which is (or pair null), it will not
> be considered to be a known
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 09:08:57PM +0200, Peter Bex wrote:
> Patch 0003 is a simple modification based on the preceding one: it
> gives a scrutiny warning when you try to set or ref a vector at an
> index that is known not to exist. For completeness, I also did this
> for list-ref, list-tail,
Peter Bex scripsit:
> It seems silly to ask the length of a vector that's statically known.
Not at all. If your program needs a vector of constants, thus:
(define pi-digits #(3 1 4 1 5 9)
then you might want to future-proof the rest of your program against
extending this constant by writing
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 09:18:14PM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Good improvements all, pushed.
>
> Regarding your note about special-casing `vector-length`, I'm curious
> why you think it wouldn't make sense? It seems worthwhile to me.
It seems silly to ask the length of a vector
Hi Peter,
Good improvements all, pushed.
Regarding your note about special-casing `vector-length`, I'm curious
why you think it wouldn't make sense? It seems worthwhile to me.
Evan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Chicken-hackers
Hi folks,
Looks good, applied to chicken-5. It didn't apply cleanly to master; was
it meant to? Personally, I'm fine making this a 5-only change.
I also updated the mdocs for the "-module" and "-link" options, which
are different and new in 5, respectively. There might be some others
that need
