[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: scm_remember

From: Dirk Herrmann
Subject: Re: scm_remember
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:27:04 +0100 (MET)

On 23 Dec 2000, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> > However, I still recommend to deprecate scm_remember in its current form
> > because of the much more irritating implications with regard to object
> > protection.
> I think this is a good suggestion.  The semantics of scm_remember
> really are hairy and scm_remember_1, etc should be easier to
> understand, *provided* that the user understands that it has to use
> them as the _last_ reference to some object.
> Maybe we could give them more descriptive names like
>     void scm_remember_upto_here_1 (SCM obj);
>     void scm_remember_upto_here_2 (SCM obj1, SCM obj2);
>     void scm_remember_upto_here (SCM obj1, ...);

Since I am not one of the 'names should be short' league, I think that
your names are much better :-)

> The function scm_remember should be deprecated alright.
> Dirk could you make that change?  We should also replace all uses of
> scm_remember in Guile itself, of course...

Will do it.

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann

reply via email to

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