Re: Now this is a nightmare...

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

> On Jul 4, 2018, at 07:29, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Having our own ly_is_integer variant map to the Guile-2 version
>> conditionally is simple, and when we do it wrong, there is an obvious
>> missing symbol at link time.  Or stuff works without complaint.
>
> That’s fine, but if it’s going to be a proxy for scm_is_exact_integer
> in the long run, the name ly_is_exact_integer gets my vote.

I don't like the verbosity (basically it can make expressions wrap
around that fit previously).  But I admit that this does not really make
for a compelling argument.

One argument not to use scm_is_exact_integer is that we cannot know
whether this is going to be a macro or a function, and our type error
messages actually look up function addresses.

So in order to check, I did one git fetch and discovered that someone is
committing to the 1.8 release branch (Thien-Thi Nguyen) bringing it back
into compilability.  That should be interesting information for
self-compilers.

At  any  rate:

origin:libguile/numbers.c-
origin:libguile/numbers.c-int
origin:libguile/numbers.c:scm_is_exact_integer (SCM val)
origin:libguile/numbers.c-{
origin:libguile/numbers.c-  return scm_is_true (scm_exact_integer_p (val));
origin:libguile/numbers.c-}

At least this one is at least at the current point of time in current
master a function (and not a macro).

-- 
David Kastrup