Erik Huelsmann ehuels@gmail.com writes:
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Mark Evenson mevenson@common-lisp.net wrote:
Author: mevenson Date: Fri Apr 16 09:41:21 2010 New Revision: 12620
Log: Use interpreted form in a FASL if compliation fails.
Although I think this is a great fallback, it seems to be automatically selected right now. I'm affraid of the negative side effects of that scenario: people will not notice that their code wasn't compiled, but is now interpreted instead. The ultimate side effect could be that we don't get any reports anymore regarding brokenness of our compiler.
In my eyes, there are 2 ways forward with this: 1) We undo this option; this leaves users at a loss when compilation fails; they'll need to use the entire file uncompiled. 2) We make the fallback a selectable restart; this way, compilation gets interrupted, the user is aware and we're much more likely to receive our feedback. But the user isn't restricted to using a fully interpreted file anymore.
Quite possibly, you can read my preference through the lines already: I think option (2) is *really* nice.
What's your opinion on the matter?
For a semi-outsider: When does compilation fail where interpretation would succeed?
-T.