[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers to reject obvious
per at bothner.com
Mon Feb 26 04:39:18 EST 2007
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> The bug that the compiler complains about might be in a part of the
> program that you're currently not interested in and that you do not
> intend to execute for the time being.
But there wouldn't be a bug in that part of the program in the first
place if you (and whoever else worked on that code) consistently
used a compiler that catches the errors.
If you need a place-holder for code that you haven't written yet,
you use something like:
(error "not yet implemented")
> A language specification shouldn't make any assumptions about the
> software development "methodology" that I want to use.
Why not? I think it is good if a language specification makes it
easier to follow good practices - for whatever one believes are
good practices, of course!
Gcc, one of the larger and more complex Free Software programs
out there, years ago switched to building with many warnings
check for - and warnings teated as errors. This, we've learned,
is a good idea.
Anyway, I'm not sure there is much point in arguing over this
- implementors will do what they want to.
per at bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
More information about the r6rs-discuss