Quote from
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2001-06/msg00348.html
>> Do we want scm_list_0 to scm_list_9 anyway?
>
> I'd say, forget about scm_list_0. With respect to the others, we should
> at least provide those which are used in libguile (egoistic point of
> view, isn't it?). About the rest up to 9 I don't know/mind.
Hi, All,
To raise this question again: I ended up with a wrapper
function for a Fortran project equivalent to the scm_list_0()
quoted below. The reason is accessing macros from languages
other than C is cumbersome.
Contrary to scm_from/to_int, scm_is_* and other macros
adding this as a funciton one is a no-brainer, since it would
be a new API call and raises no compatibility concerns.
What do you think? Do you count from 0 or from 1?
Alexei
P.S.: the next on my which list would be scm_undefined().
$ git diff libguile/list.c
diff --git a/libguile/list.c b/libguile/list.c
index 8297b17..e253510 100644
--- a/libguile/list.c
+++ b/libguile/list.c
@@ -41,6 +41,12 @@
} while (0)
SCM
+scm_list_0 ()
+{
+ return SCM_EOL; /* macro */
+}
+
+SCM
scm_list_1 (SCM e1)
{
SCM c1;
