Simplify error checking #654
Conversation
In the compiler, instead of
```
(if some-condition
( X ...
...
... )
(compiler-error Y))
```
we do
```
(unless some-condition (compiler-error Y))
( X ...
...
... )
```
Or `when`, when it makes sense
This makes error checking isolated in the place where it
programatically happens, and also reduces source code size a little
bit, makeing it clearer.
There are already uses of the macros `when` and `unless` in the
compiler, so we're not introducing a dependency on them.
|
I know that there are other places in STklos source that use the |
|
Hi @jpellegrini, The form you propose is not equivalent to the original writing. In fact (define (compile-quote expr env tail?)
(unless (= (length expr) 2) (compiler-error 'quote expr "bad usage in ~S" expr))
(compile-constant (cadr expr) env tail?))If you call |
|
Oh, I saw that the new form wasn't equivalent, but I thought it wouldn't be relevant, because it passed all tests. Maybe we need more tests then! 😁 |
The problem here is that the tests (in |
@egallesio this is mostly a matter of style. See if you agree...
In the compiler, instead of
(if some-condition ( X ... ... ... ) (compiler-error Y))we do
(unless some-condition (compiler-error Y)) ( X ... ... ... )Or
when, when it makes senseThis makes error checking isolated in the place where it programatically happens, and also reduces source code size a little bit, making it clearer.
There are already uses of the macros
whenandunlessin the compiler, so we're not introducing a dependency on them.