Re: scm_sloppy_memq

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> On 1 Dec 2000, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> 
> > Yes, only these are needed: 1. scm_memq and 2. a maximally efficient
> > version of memq intended for use in cases where the listiness is
> > guaranteed.  Functions 2 should not be exported to the Scheme level.
> [...]
> > I suggest that we introduce function 2 above under the name
> > 
> >   scm_c_memq
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Assuming that scm_c_memq behaves as scm_memq for the case that the object
> can't be found in the list, this is a very good solution.  In the long
> term (with the new C standard) scm_c_memq should probably become an inline
> function.

Let's go for it!

(Probably it's easier for you to replace scm_memq with scm_c_memq at
locations which previously used scm_sloppy_memq says lazy Mikael... :)