[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Only try to time tests when `time` command is available

2016-12-11 Thread Evan Hanson
--- tests/runtests.sh | 7 --- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/runtests.sh b/tests/runtests.sh index 745ad1c..164c1f4 100755 --- a/tests/runtests.sh +++ b/tests/runtests.sh @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ SETUP_PREFIX="${SETUP_PREFIX} -e (register-program \"csi\"

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Aggressively reject definitions in expression contexts (#1309)

2016-12-11 Thread Evan Hanson
On 2016-12-11 18:00, Peter Bex wrote: > I think it's counter-intuitive that module or functor definitions are > expressions that can even yield a value. Just wanted to mention that this is actually one of my favorite things about our module system. It's occasionally handy to be able to isolate a

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix for "parameterize" regression (#1336), caused by fix for #1227

2016-12-11 Thread Evan Hanson
Thanks Peter, both have been applied. This stuff is hairy, but the approach of using a second let for ordering (or rather, *not* ordering) is nice. Thanks for looking into the issue. And many thanks to Joo ChurlSoo as well, for uncovering and reporting it. The test case is very much appreciated.

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Aggressively reject definitions in expression contexts (#1309)

2016-12-11 Thread felix . winkelmann
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:58:50PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > > I don't know, but reading what you wrote in the ticket ("... this will > > require quite a bit of rework and hardcoding all defining forms into the > > compiler (which we have to do already anyway, to make internal

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Aggressively reject definitions in expression contexts (#1309)

2016-12-11 Thread Peter Bex
On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 10:58:50PM +0100, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > I don't know, but reading what you wrote in the ticket ("... this will > require quite a bit of rework and hardcoding all defining forms into the > compiler (which we have to do already anyway, to make internal defines

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Aggressively reject definitions in expression contexts (#1309)

2016-12-11 Thread felix . winkelmann
I don't know, but reading what you wrote in the ticket ("... this will require quite a bit of rework and hardcoding all defining forms into the compiler (which we have to do already anyway, to make internal defines work)...") makes me cringe. It's the responsibility of the defining forms to

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] [5] Aggressively reject definitions in expression contexts (#1309)

2016-12-11 Thread Peter Bex
Hi all, Attached is a patch for #1309, which is due to an underlying problem that has plagued us for a long time, and has been reported in a few other bugs too (for example in #445 and #1297, and probably #512 too). The attached patch fixes this by letting the core compiler (and also the closure