Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] improve type-matching some more

[Peter Bex]

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 02:16:10PM +0100, Felix wrote:
> This patch builds on the recent scrutinizer fix for list-of/list
> type matching and generalizes the fix somewhat to uses of
> "(pair ...)" types. Canonicalization of list-like types
> uses "(list ...)" where appropriate, which is more precise
> than "(list-of (or ...))".

Thanks, I've pushed this and added (apply1 + (cons 'a (cons 2 '())))
to the scrutiny tests (for #952).

> I darkly recall that the use of "list-of" was intentional at
> some point, but this way of canonicalization is definitely
> more accurate. Still, we should look out for regressions.

Indeed.  When it turns up we can investigate further.

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