[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1
From: |
Michael Livshin |
Subject: |
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1 |
Date: |
06 Feb 2001 12:38:29 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake) |
Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:
> I thought SCM_SETCAR/CDR are doing something special, but looking
> at their definitions again, I realized they aren't. Okay, I'll
> remove the redundant functions.
just to clarify (or maybe further obfuscate, we'll see): theoretically
SCM_SETCAR/CDR might do something special. in a generational GC, for
instance. however, I think we should always provide non-special
counterparts which will be used, for instance, in bulk initializations
and undumping.
> Name Stored tag Real tc
>
> "foo" 127 + 0 * 256 (dynamically determined by name)
> "bar" 127 + 1 * 256 (dynamically determined by name)
> ...
>
> Do we need some verification mechanism? How?
probably not. I just thought that the fact that the smob type name
*must* always be unique is not currently apparent enough to users.
--
Portions of this broadcast have been prerecorded.
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, (continued)
- Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1,
Michael Livshin <=
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/07
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/08
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/19
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/02/04