From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mikael Djurfeldt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Stack Size? Date: 09 Aug 2002 15:48:22 +0200 Sender: guile-user-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <28099.9337476262$1028901018@news.gmane.org> References: Reply-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028901018 3763 127.0.0.1 (9 Aug 2002 13:50:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 13:50:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se, guile-user@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dA9g-0000yP-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:50:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dAAR-0005mr-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from kvast.blakulla.net ([213.212.20.77]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dAAC-0005m8-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 09:50:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mdj by kvast.blakulla.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dAAC-0002bS-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:50:48 +0200 Resent-To: guile-user@gnu.org Resent-Reply-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se Resent-Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se Resent-From: Mikael Djurfeldt Resent-Date: 09 Aug 2002 15:50:48 +0200 X-From-Line: imap Fri Aug 9 15:49:10 2002 X-Sieve: cmu-sieve 2.0 Original-Received: from mx1.nada.kth.se (mx1.nada.kth.se [130.237.222.211]) by mail1.nada.kth.se (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id g79DmUn10645 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:48:30 +0200 (MET DST) Original-Received: from kvast.blakulla.net (kvast.blakulla.net [213.212.20.77]) by mx1.nada.kth.se (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g79DmPK1003391 for ; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 15:48:25 +0200 (MEST) Original-Received: from mdj by kvast.blakulla.net with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17dA7q-0002bC-00; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 15:48:22 +0200 Original-To: ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl ) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 31 Resent-Message-Id: Errors-To: guile-user-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:796 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:796 ruhl@4dv.net (Robert Uhl ) writes: > Neil Jerram writes: > > > > > I've re-written the function, but it seems to me that it'd perhaps > > > make more sense for Guile to simply grow the stack until it runs > > > out of memory. Is there a technical reason this doesn't happen? > > > > No idea, I'm afraid. Perhaps it's considered a good thing for a > > language to allow applications to have a grip on their stack usage? Guile is supposed to be "nice" towards novice users. Infinite recursions is a very common error. Without a stack check, the effect is that the machine freezes due to excessive swapping, preventing the novice user from even examining what has happened. > It seems to me somewhat broken that one must set a debug option > explicitly off. Sort of a command-line switch --behave-yourself, when > that should be the default behaviour. Certainly, stack size checks > may be _very_ useful when testing code. But just as certainly, in > production those same checks are a nuisance, and can cause code to > break. It's probably a bad idea to use large stacks in production code and, if not, it's rather easy to set the option to whatever one wants. Maybe the correct setting is a very large stack? M _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user