Re: GRM questions

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> OK, so we should probably use the following set of names:
> 
> SCM_SMOB_WORD_[1-3]
> SCM_SMOB_OBJECT_[1-3]

Agreed.
 
> However, I am not sure about the SCM_SMOB_SCRAP suggestion.
> Alternatively, one could simply use SCM_SMOB_WORD_0 and have that
> macro mask out the relevant bits.  On the other hand, whoever works
> with smobs must have at least a basic understanding of guile's type
> system anyway.

Yes, and they need to know exactly how big the scrap pad is as well,
so there is probably even a need to abstract away things like the 16
in "x << 16".

> Thus, the restriction to only use the upper bits of the smob does
> not seem too important.  In this case, a macro SCM_SMOB_WORD_0
> should also be introduced, but it wouldn't need to do any bit magic.

Agreed.