Neil Jerram wrote:
FWIW, dropping lisp_ looks OK, but I'm not sure about dropping
and_. scm_is_false_not_nil feels notably harder to understand
than scm_is_false_and_not_nil.
Yes, I see your point, and I agree.
Mark
The ability to set! arbitrary module top-level variables from outside
the module, using the syntax (set! (@@ MOD NAME) EXP), destroys our
ability to several important optimizations.
As long as such ability exists, we must pessimistically assume that
any module top-level variable might change at
Sorry, I meant to say that (set! (@ MOD NAME) EXP) should be
considered harmful as well.
Mark
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 12:17:11PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
The ability to set! arbitrary module top-level variables from outside
the module, using the syntax (set! (@@ MOD NAME) EXP),
On Sep 2, 2009, at 04:08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
In the Guile case, I'm a tiny bit concerned about some of the
pointer/
int games played (e.g., I'm pretty sure C99 does not guarantee that
you can convert an arbitrary uintptr_t value to pointer and back and
be guaranteed of getting the original
