Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Michael Livshin]

Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

the "list lengths etc." bit is too simplistic.  size_t is fine for
vector lengths, but might not be enough for list and (bit) array
lengths.  we should use uintptr_t (or unsigned long) for those.

> 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?

looks good.

-- 
There are few personal problems which can't be solved by the suitable
application of high explosives.