On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 09:27:54PM +0200, Tomas Volf wrote:
> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 12:50:57AM +0300, var-vniiaes--- via Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hello,
> >>  
> >> Execution of   (set-car! '(0) 1)   *in compiled code*  leads to segfault:
> >
> > First of all: you shouldn't be doing that :)
> >
> > You are mutating a constant. I don't know what the Scheme specification says
> > to it (if at all).
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> As noted in section 3.4, it is an error to attempt to alter
> a constant (i.e. the value of a literal expression) using a
> mutation procedure like set-car! or string-set!
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> 
> > The other question is whether Guile should/could catch that and signal an
> > error instead.
> 
> I believe it should not.

This is ambiguous, but from the context below I think you mean Guile
should catch it. I agree :-)

> Memory-safe languages (and, Guile is supposed
> to be one) should never segfault but instead terminate with a sensible
> error.  I realize that 1.3.2 allows to "fail catastrophically", which
> segfault probably qualifies as, but I believe we should do better.

Definitely -- the question is whether Guile wants to rely on the
OS/runtime to catch an out-of-bounds access (or more probably here
an access to a region marked read-onls) or catch it itself.

Cheers
-- 
tomás