Re: [Chicken-hackers] Making -scrutinize the default?

[Felix]

From: Mario Domenech Goulart <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Making -scrutinize the default?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 12:29:23 -0400

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 18:25:58 +0200 Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> The scrutinizer has been tested a lot by now and I think it provides
>> useful warnings.  Especially when it comes to deprecated stuff, it's
>> very useful to know when you're using stuff that will disappear in
>> the next release (case in point: the recent massive salmonella breakage
>> with master).
>>
>> I believe it's been suggested before, but I still think it would be
>> a good idea to make -scrutinize the default.  You'd get all of the
>> benefits of type checking, but none of the risky optimizations that
>> -specialize offers.  I haven't seen bogus warnings from the scrutinizer
>> in quite a while.
>>
>> Thoughts?  Opinions?
> 
> I think it is a good idea.  Is there any reason *not* to do that?

One problem is that it assumes a specific meaning for Scheme standard
procedures. If you redefine them, the scrutinizer will complain if the
signature or type does not match the original one (this could probably
be handled by disabling scrutiny when -O0 / -no-usual-integrations is
used).


cheers,
felix