Re: GRM questions

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> On 30 May 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't that be SCM_SMOB_DATA?
> 
> Good question.  Yes, it could be used.  However, SCM_SMOB_DATA was
> introduced at a time when there were no double cells.

I see.  Hmm.

> [good analysis]
> I see two possible solutions to this:
> 
> * We could introduce macros SCM_SMOB_DATA_[0-3], maybe even
>   SCM_SMOB_[WORD|OBJECT]_data_[0-4], with SCM_SMOB_OBJECT_DATA_0 being an
>   illegal combination.

I prefer this.  Do we need "DATA" in the names?  What about treating
the 16 bit field specifically with SCM_SMOB_SCRAP or so that hides the
exact place that field takes in the word.  Also, there should probably
be constructors that allow this field to be specified.
 
> * We eliminate the macro SCM_SMOB_DATA. [...]