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

[Waldek Hebisch]

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