[Ecls-list] Type propagator and "bogus" existing code

Waldek Hebisch hebisch at math.uni.wroc.pl
Sat Jun 19 15:13:57 UTC 2010

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis <
> gdr at integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
> > It is valid Lisp, then error is obviously not acceptable.
> > Any other form of diagnostic that leads to build error is also
> > too severe.  Obviously, miscompilation is not an option.
> > My question is: can ECL still generate correct codes?
> >
> There is no such thing as "correct" in this case, because the arguments were
> declared / inferred to have one type and the function expects a different
> one.

IMHO the "correct" code is obtained replacing function call by
call to error-signaling routine, that is any attempt to execute
expression which is proved to be type error signals at runtime
type error.

                              Waldek Hebisch
hebisch at math.uni.wroc.pl 

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list