Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing

[Felix]

From: Peter Bex <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Re: make check failing
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 00:24:52 +0100

> On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 12:16:21AM +0100, Felix wrote:
>> > Actually, if you want to write portable code you must, and you must also
>> > wrap it in inexact->exact.  However, since the FFI isn't portable anyway
>> > it won't matter that much, except when if decide to switch to supporting
>> > bignums in core.  When that happens, all code that doesn't round and
>> > convert to exact will break unless we decide to keep this for backwards
>> > compat for a while.  But eventually it'll break.
>> 
>> I don't write portable code, and a switch to supporting bignums in the
>> core-system is not decided on, yet.
> 
> True, but it could happen!  Maybe not this year, but who knows what'll
> happen the next 10 years :)
> 
>> > (vector-ref (vector 1 2 3 4) 1.5) shouldn't
>> > work, why then should ((foreign-lambda void do-something int) 1.5),
>> > especially considering vector-ref could reasonably be defined as this:
>> > 
>> > (lambda (v i) 
>> >   (check-type 'vector v)
>> >   ((foreign-lambda scheme-object C_block_item scheme-object int) v i))?
>> 
>> Because these are two completely different things, and you know that.
> 
> Well, yes.  But still, I don't see why it has to be different.  If you
> really feel strongly about it I'll push your change as-is; I don't feel
> as strongly about it; I just have this faint hunch that it'll help
> prevent some small class of bugs.  Just say the word.

I have pushed your amended patch. There is no convincing argument that
I could give.


cheers,
felix