* (language tree-il compile-glil) question
@ 2010-04-27 5:40 Jon Herron
2010-04-27 21:06 ` Andy Wingo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jon Herron @ 2010-04-27 5:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
Hello -
In some late night hacking this evening/morn I came across a question in (language tree-il compile-glil) - should line 126 read ((return . 1) . return) instead of ((return . 1) return)? This appears to fix an issue I ran into implementing returns for guile-php, but don't know if this causes any issues (noticed the 'hack for javascript' comment right above that line).
Thanks,
Jon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question
2010-04-27 5:40 (language tree-il compile-glil) question Jon Herron
@ 2010-04-27 21:06 ` Andy Wingo
2010-04-27 22:09 ` Jon Herron
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2010-04-27 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jon Herron; +Cc: guile-devel
On Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:40, Jon Herron <jon.herron@yahoo.com> writes:
> In some late night hacking this evening/morn I came across a question
> in (language tree-il compile-glil) - should line 126 read ((return . 1)
> . return) instead of ((return . 1) return)?
Indeed, it appears that way. I have fixed and pushed, thanks for the
note!
Return is a hack, though; I would rather express returns using prompt
and abort, with some tree-il inliner logic to simplify some cases. But I
was in a rush, so return is how it is.
I'll be updating tree-il and vm docs to correspond to reality this
weekend.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question
2010-04-27 21:06 ` Andy Wingo
@ 2010-04-27 22:09 ` Jon Herron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jon Herron @ 2010-04-27 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Wingo; +Cc: guile-devel
Cool, thanks for the push. I'll get by on return until the time comes to switch over to the other method that you mentioned.
Thanks,
Jon
----- Original Message ----
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: Jon Herron <jon.herron@yahoo.com>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tue, April 27, 2010 5:06:39 PM
Subject: Re: (language tree-il compile-glil) question
On Tue 27 Apr 2010 07:40, Jon Herron <jon.herron@yahoo.com> writes:
> In some late night hacking this evening/morn I came across a question
> in (language tree-il compile-glil) - should line 126 read ((return . 1)
> . return) instead of ((return . 1) return)?
Indeed, it appears that way. I have fixed and pushed, thanks for the
note!
Return is a hack, though; I would rather express returns using prompt
and abort, with some tree-il inliner logic to simplify some cases. But I
was in a rush, so return is how it is.
I'll be updating tree-il and vm docs to correspond to reality this
weekend.
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-04-27 22:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-04-27 5:40 (language tree-il compile-glil) question Jon Herron
2010-04-27 21:06 ` Andy Wingo
2010-04-27 22:09 ` Jon Herron
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).