Re: SCM_CALL_N

[Keisuke Nishida]

At 24 Jun 2001 10:04:15 +0100,
Neil Jerram wrote:
> 
> Yes, I agree with you here.  I have problems understanding this too;
> hence my message asking about the reasoning behind scm_listofnull.
> But I would prefer to improve the scm_apply calling convention than to
> hide the whole scm_apply call.

I guess the reason for using scm_listofnull is to reduce consing.

The following two expressions are equivalent

  scm_apply (proc, SCM_LIST1 (arg1), SCM_EOL);

  scm_apply (proc, arg1, scm_listofnull);

except that the former conses a cell.

I thought the SCM_CALL_N macros are good because they abstract
the actual calls.  I think this is good as long as we know what
they do exactly.

Best regards,
Keisuke Nishida