[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

From: Dirk Herrmann
Subject: Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:12:35 +0200 (MEST)

On 9 Jun 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> 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?

I agree.

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann

reply via email to

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