Gotchas: Difference between revisions
→Insitux: inclusion
(New post.) |
(→Insitux: inclusion) |
||
Line 238:
printf("%d %d %d %x %x",x,y,z); //on an Intel cpu the first %x reveals %%ebp and the second reveals the return address.)
}</syntaxhighlight>
=={{Header|Insitux}}==
A common "gotcha" in Insitux concerns one of its greatest strengths: ''any'' built-in operations under-loaded by exactly one parameter become closures. Under-loading by accidental omission is a common mistake, sometimes purely typological. Below is an example of accidental under-loading due to misuse of <code>max</code>.
<syntaxhighlight lang="insitux">
(let numbers [1 2 3 4]
maximum (max numbers)) ;should be (... max numbers)
(+ maximum 5)
</syntaxhighlight>
{{out}}
<pre>
3:2 (+ maximum 5)
Type Error: fast+ takes numeric arguments only, not closure.
In entry.ix
</pre>
This leads onto another "gotcha": Insitux substitutes any obvious instances of arithmetic operations used with two parameters with a faster alternative which, internally, does not need to iterate over ''N'' parameters. The reason this is a gotcha is two-fold: it can be a bit confusing to see e.g. <code>fast+</code> when you used <code>+</code>, and it complicates [https://www.rosettacode.org/wiki/Test_a_function#Insitux mocking] arithmetic operations.
<syntaxhighlight lang="insitux">
(mock + (fn a b ((unmocked +) a b 1)))
(+ 2 3)
</syntaxhighlight>
{{out}}
<pre>
5
</pre>
The example above "should" have returned <code>6</code>, but to achieve this we would need to mock <code>fast+</code> instead.
=={{header|J}}==
| |||