[r6rs-discuss] [Formal] Allow compilers
to reject obvious violations
r6rs at jdev.users.panix.com
Mon Feb 26 21:38:49 EST 2007
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 02:00:09AM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Per Bothner wrote:
> >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.
> GCC == C? (Roughly true but more or less to the detriment
> of both and entirely for bogus outcomes of microeconomic
> processes dominated by people behaving badly.)
There's actually an interesting point buried in here -- is GCC popularly
considered to become nonstandard when run with -Wall -Werror, even
though it rejects programs that (I assume) the C spec says are okay?
My impression is that it's not -- and many of the warnings-made-errors
are pure style issues, rather than anything defined in terms of an
exceptional condition that might arise.
(let ((C call-with-current-continuation)) (apply (lambda (x y) (x y)) (map
((lambda (r) ((C C) (lambda (s) (r (lambda l (apply (s s) l)))))) (lambda
(f) (lambda (l) (if (null? l) C (lambda (k) (display (car l)) ((f (cdr l))
(C k))))))) '((#\J #\d #\D #\v #\s) (#\e #\space #\a #\i #\newline)))))
More information about the r6rs-discuss