Charles A. Cox wrote:
Just a quick note to say that I'm on travel this week. I don't immediately remember how the limit was picked or how much it can be increased, so I'll have to take a look at this when I get back (early next week, I hope).
I managed to squeeze in a quick look at the code to remind myself what's going on. It does seem as though the limit can safely be increased to 20 (or beyond). The issue is that we are doing stack allocation at this point, which requires an array size to be known when the Lisp code is being compiled. That's the reason we specify a size at all. The actual limit value is arbitrary. It's best to keep it to a reasonably small number, though, so as not to waste stack space at runtime.
The (error "Need more coding here...") was probably a note to myself that it would be nice to have a way to go beyond the limit at runtime, say, with simulated dyanamic-extent static arrays, but I seem to have left that as a lower priority task since it was easier just to increase the limit and recompile rdnzl when needed.
Feel free to let me know if there are further questions.
Charley