Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Export specializations with generated type database information

[Peter Bex]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:17:52AM -0700, Evan Hanson wrote:
> On 2014-10-20  8:20, Peter Bex wrote:
> > How about changing this to use the full argument list, instead?
> 
> Hm, interesting. Including types in the names would work, but it also
> feels very wrong to me to embed contract information at the syntactic
> level like that. Crosses too many layers, etc. As you point out, though,
> the recompilation issue is an important one to address... Hrm.

I don't really see the harm in that: these names are specifically created
in order to provide a specialization "hook" for the type system, so it
makes sense that it would contain some reference to the information that
the type system uses.

If this is too hairy you could come up with some sort of hash that is
dependent on the types, but personally I find that a hairy solution: we
have s-expressions, so let's use them.

> Anyway, I don't have a better idea, but I also don't really want to add
> anything half-baked (subjective as that is....). I'll probably shelve this
> for now, unless any other hackers@ really like the long-names solution.

What would this imply?  Not applying the patch at all?  I would really
prefer fixing the recompilation issue (in any way) before applying it.

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