Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Marius Vollmer]

Michael Livshin <address@hidden> writes:

> the "list lengths etc." bit is too simplistic.

Yeah, but it's not clear to me yet what to do about it.  Also, that
change is not as trivial as the other ones since we have to go thru
all the code to get the use of size_t or whatever straight (I think).
So let's first get the things done that we agree upon.