Am Montag, dem 30.08.2021 um 20:01 +0200 schrieb Jean Abou Samra: > > I would highly prefer to not mix switching the default backend with > > switching to Guile 2.2 that will already be disruptive enough (yes, > > it's going slower than I had hoped...). > > > At the moment, I have trouble seeing how Guile 2 could be made to > work well. The absence of error locations is a source of frustration. > My understanding is that this is a design limitation of Guile 2 and > later when interpreting code (as opposed to byte-compiling).
Hm, when Harm brought up this point in the previous thread in May, I did not understand this to be a critical showstopper for adoption of Guile 2.2 (is it?) or I would have prioritized this over working on the new infrastructure to compile binaries. IIRC Harm's comments were mostly about not confusing the average user with ugly backtraces of Scheme internals - which was solved some time ago by only enabling them in debug mode. For the error locations, I had some WIP solution for ~80% of the cases (typos and wrong argument types) by installing a custom exception handler and manually adding the location information of where the parsed code came from. I had hoped to revisit this approach over the weekend, but it didn't happen. I cannot foresee when I will have time for this, but just to let people know that I don't think all hope is lost here. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
