The trio the author decided on 2026-09-20 is now all built: def is CL's
defparameter — its initialiser runs on every daemon re-run, unguarded, so
an edited initialiser repaints the same storage on C-c C-c plus re-run —
defonce (Clojure's name for CL's defvar, per the author) initialises once
behind the .init~once. flag, and defconst stays the image.
One parse arm reads both forms; the difference is Ast.reinit, carried to
Tast.global's grerun. Emit.startup_plan gives a def no guard flag, and
Check.check_global lifts every def initialiser — zero and literal
included — into global/<n>, so the host's startup reaches it through the
function cell and a re-evaluated def swaps it (Session's def_inits;
Emit.redefinition declares the cell for a non-sibling target). The old
defvar spelling is refused with the rename and both compiling spellings,
and every program, test, doc and editor list is swept — except sand.flan,
the author's live WIP, whose seven defvar lines are flagged in FIX.org
and keep its three dependent tests red on this branch.
Three arithmetic situations had no defined behaviour and the two backends
disagreed about all three: a divide or remainder by zero, which was a raw
SIGFPE with no message and no location; (/ min -1), whose quotient is one past
the top of the type; and a float to integer cast whose value does not fit,
which LLVM called undefined and would fold to anything.
They now signal ArithError with `error`, exactly as a bad index signals
BoundsError, and die with a sentence naming the file, the line and the operands
only if nothing answered. The guards ride the same --checks flag as the bounds
check and are elided with it.
No restart is established at the failing operation. The sketch this started
from asked for use-value, and the implementation ruled it out: a restart frame
is allocated by the restart-case that offers it, on its own stack, so the
runtime cannot hold one on a program's behalf and use-value here would mean an
alloca and a restart frame at every division in every checked build. That is
the cost already refused for indexing, buying a silently different answer.
The x86 backend is unchanged and is the next commit.
