From: Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious violations Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 18:03:31 -0800
> Arthur A. Gleckler wrote: > > My only concern is that an error in one part of my program should not > > prevent me from running another part of the program. The thing I most > > dislike about most statically typed language implementations is that > > they prevent me from testing a program that isn't yet completely > > type-correct when I'm not even planning to invoke the broken part of the > > program. I suppose that this suggestion only allows, but doesn't > > require, compiler writers to signal errors it can detect at compile > > time. Still, I'd rather not encourage this behavior if it makes it > > impossible to run programs that are not yet completely correct. > > I really don't understand this point of view. We know that it is > *much* easier to find and fix a bug the earlier it is caught. If a > compiler can automatically find a bug right after you write it, > and you don't have to write any extra code or do any extra work, > then it seems silly to not take advantage of this help. I think Arthur's concern is for the cases when you are changing your program; say, you got an idea of changing interface of a library funtion, and want to try it to see how it works in one component of your software, while the function is also called from other components. If the compiler requires everthing to be consistent, it mandates you to change all the call sites in other components, even if you know you won't run those components for the test. However, I think the original argument is whether to allow earlier checks or not, and not to require them. I second for having optional capability to catch such errors statically. --shiro _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
