Re: [Chicken-hackers] testcase -strict-types

[Peter Bex]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:59:16PM +0100, Moritz Heidkamp wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
> 
> The "Note" points to the problem I think: The specializer seems to just
> replace your null? check with #t as can be seen when compiling the
> program like this:
> 
>   $ csc -debug 3 -strict-types strcttps.scm
> 
> The output contains this:
> 
>   (if #t (k225 'gaga) (k225 foobar8))
> 
> I'm not sure how -strict-types could lead to this result. Maybe the type
> declaration for null? is flawed somehow?

As I understand it, strict-types declares variables to never change
their types.  So once it's looked at the initial declaration of the
variable, it assigns it a type of null, and then it can never change.

    -strict-types                  assume variable do not change their type

The set! would change the type from NULL to LIST (or maybe PAIR),
invalidating that assumption.

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://www.more-magic.net