Re: scm_sloppy_memq

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 1 Dec 2000, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:

> Yes, only these are needed: 1. scm_memq and 2. a maximally efficient
> version of memq intended for use in cases where the listiness is
> guaranteed.  Functions 2 should not be exported to the Scheme level.
[...]
> I suggest that we introduce function 2 above under the name
> 
>   scm_c_memq
> 
> What do you think?

Assuming that scm_c_memq behaves as scm_memq for the case that the object
can't be found in the list, this is a very good solution.  In the long
term (with the new C standard) scm_c_memq should probably become an inline
function.

Dirk Herrmann