Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> It is probably impossible to formulate guile's type encoding tricks
> cleanly in the current or future C standard anyway.  However, the
> suggestion to simply use size_t for string, vector and list lengths is
> good, IMO.

Ok, do we have a conclusion?  I'd say we need to move away from
scm_*_t towards scm_t_*, which shouldn't be complicated, and make
scm_t_bits an unsigned type.  For list lengths etc, we continue to use
size_t for now.

As a bonus, we might check for uintptr_t and use that for scm_t_ubits
if it is found.  If not, we use unsigned long.

Everybody agrees?