[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1

From: Keisuke Nishida
Subject: Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 19:34:39 -0500
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/21.0.96 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At 06 Feb 2001 12:38:29 +0200,
Michael Livshin wrote:
> > I thought SCM_SETCAR/CDR are doing something special, but looking
> > at their definitions again, I realized they aren't.  Okay, I'll
> > remove the redundant functions.
> just to clarify (or maybe further obfuscate, we'll see): theoretically
> SCM_SETCAR/CDR might do something special.  in a generational GC, for
> instance.  however, I think we should always provide non-special
> counterparts which will be used, for instance, in bulk initializations
> and undumping.

I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence.  Are you for or
against using the address of SCM_CAR/CDR?

> > Do we need some verification mechanism?  How?
> probably not.  I just thought that the fact that the smob type name
> *must* always be unique is not currently apparent enough to users.

In the future, I guess smobs and classes should be defined in
association with specific modules.  That way, we can determine
each smob and class by a name like "guile::core::type::keyword".


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]