Re: [Chicken-hackers] Fix #1227 and simplify "parameterize" macro a bit

[Peter Bex]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 05:35:54PM +0100, Peter Bex wrote:
> The fix is as I mentioned in the ticket: We change the semantics of
> parameter object procedures a bit.  Instead of accepting a "hidden"
> extra argument which indicates the guard procedure should be skipped,
> we add another argument which indicates that the parameter should not
> be set.

About this: I didn't do it as in the ticket for compatibility reasons:
the compiler and runtime library itself uses "parameterize", and if we
change the way parameter procedures work, that will result in a compiler
that won't work against the new library.

This is unfortunate, because the current approach makes user errors more
likely: if you accidentally pass more than one argument to a parameter
object's procedure, it will do the wrong thing.  I don't really know how
we can change this without causing bootstrap breakage, though.  Ideas on
how to do this are welcome!

Cheers,
Peter

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature