Re: The relationship between SCM and scm_t_bits.

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> This did not answer my question from my previous mail, where I asked
> you for a clear statement about whether this style of coding is to be
> considered discouraged: Is there a strategy towards a generational gc,
> or not? Shall new code make use of the *LOC accessors or shall
> developers avoid it?

There is no strategy towards a generational GC or any other scheme
that requires a write-barrier.

I'd say we could 'discourage' the *LOC accessors.  We then need to
have Guile itself stop using them.  (See NEWS for an explanation of
'discouraged'.)

I will answer the rest later.  I really don't want to put much more
thought into this, anyway.  To me, SCM and scm_t_bits are the same
type (the machine word), only that SCM is rigged to trick the compiler
into not allowing certain operations that we don't want to allow.