Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Another symbol GC sanity check fix [was: Re: [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them]

2017-07-25 Thread felix . winkelmann
> Here's another attempt at improving the sanity check, but if this > keeps cropping up we might as well just get rid of the sanity check. > On the other hand, it does point out several issues, so maybe it's > useful after all: > > - Any symbol that starts with \x00 is seen as a keyword, which

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Another symbol GC sanity check fix [was: Re: [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them]

2017-07-19 Thread Peter Bex
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 09:38:14AM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > I'm slightly frightened by all the plans for various overhauls and want to > point > out that once 5.0 is released, such changes will require a Change Request > (which is a good thing, as I think we are going slightly

Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Another symbol GC sanity check fix [was: Re: [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them]

2017-07-19 Thread felix . winkelmann
> > From there, there are two ways to ensure they don't interfere with > symbols that are spelled the same: > > - Make the lookup know what we're looking for and use the symbol's > value to determine whether to return the object or not. > - Create a new symbol table for keywords specifically.

[Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Another symbol GC sanity check fix [was: Re: [PATCH] Fix record type tags to be nonglobal by module-prefixing them]

2017-07-18 Thread Peter Bex
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:55:21AM +1200, Evan Hanson wrote: > Regarding whether to namespace the core record types, I think we > probably _should_ do so, but it's not a priority. Fun fact: Because we now define it as a symbol, we trigger another GC sanity check assertion failure... The problem