[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCM_LENGTH ???
From: |
Bruce Korb |
Subject: |
Re: SCM_LENGTH ??? |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:12:54 -0800 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.2 |
On Monday 10 January 2005 12:34 pm, Ken Raeburn wrote:
> It won't work on all systems, but it should work on a lot of the
> configurations we'd care most about. And if a macro is deprecated, the
> overhead of a function call shouldn't be a big deal, as long as the
> semantics are such that it can actually be implemented with a function
> call.
That would be great! Please! Thank you - Bruce
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Bruce Korb, 2005/01/07
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Marius Vollmer, 2005/01/07
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Bruce Korb, 2005/01/07
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Marius Vollmer, 2005/01/10
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Bruce Korb, 2005/01/10
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Greg Troxel, 2005/01/10
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Marius Vollmer, 2005/01/11
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Kevin Ryde, 2005/01/11
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Marius Vollmer, 2005/01/12
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Ken Raeburn, 2005/01/10
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???,
Bruce Korb <=
- Re: SCM_LENGTH ???, Marius Vollmer, 2005/01/11