[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
From: |
Marius Vollmer |
Subject: |
Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t |
Date: |
09 Jun 2001 19:14:36 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.102 |
Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:
> It is probably impossible to formulate guile's type encoding tricks
> cleanly in the current or future C standard anyway. However, the
> suggestion to simply use size_t for string, vector and list lengths is
> good, IMO.
Ok, do we have a conclusion? I'd say we need to move away from
scm_*_t towards scm_t_*, which shouldn't be complicated, and make
scm_t_bits an unsigned type. For list lengths etc, we continue to use
size_t for now.
As a bonus, we might check for uintptr_t and use that for scm_t_ubits
if it is found. If not, we use unsigned long.
Everybody agrees?
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/01
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/05
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t,
Marius Vollmer <=
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/09
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/13
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/10
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/06/11
- Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t, Michael Livshin, 2001/06/11