Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode)

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
>>If you really want to check for #t, you should use 'eq?', I'd say:
>>
>>  scm_is_eq (x, SCM_BOOL_T)
>
> Why scm_is_eq instead of scm_eq_p?

scm_eq_p is the 'eq?' subr; it returns a SCM boolean.  scm_is_eq is a
C predicate that returns 0 or 1.

> Are you proposing to rename _all_ predicates to scm_is_?

No, they will stay the way they are.  Instead of scm_is_eq, one could
also use

    scm_is_true (scm_eq_p (X, Y))

but scm_is_eq is so fundamental, it ought to have its own name and be
really fast.

There wont be scm_is_procedure or scm_is_even, for example, you will
have to use scm_procedure_p or scm_even_p together with scm_is_true.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405