[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] inlining + identity of literals
From: |
Peter Bex |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] inlining + identity of literals |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:51:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 11:09:50AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Chust scripsit:
>
> > I consider it extremely bad style to rely on the mutability of
> > literals, so I wouldn't mind if structurally equal literal constants
> > were folded, whether there is inlining involved or not.
>
> +1. I would never intentionally write code that mutated a literal.
+1 from me too. Besides this, I don't know if it can be easily done,
but it would be great if the system could actually throw an error when
you tried to do that. A mistake is easily made :)
Cheers,
Peter
--
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth