Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps.

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA>]

[ FWIW, my Helvetic origins want me to stay neutral on this issue.  ]

> Also I don't understand why it should be the byte compiler's task to
> check the syntax of expressions for correctness.

I can answer this part: it's simply because most of the work needed to
perform such checks is already done by the compiler for other reasons,
so it's easy to do it within the compiler.

If you want to do it elsewhere, you'll need to either duplicate some of
the compiler's code, or refactor it so it can be used for both.
Refactoring is the ideal solution since it makes it possible to do yet
more things (e.g. think of the Clang project as an example, compared to
having it buried within LLVM), but it can be a lot of work.

In any case, such a refactoring wouldn't make a difference to the
problem at hand: the problem is not "the byte-compiler needs line
numbers" but "the code that emits the warnings needs line numbers" and
then how to make the line-information available to it and make this
information survive through macro-expansion (even though the macros are
not prepared to manipulate annotated source code).


        Stefan