Re: SCM_CALL_N

[Dale P. Smith]

Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> 
> On 22 Jun 2001, Neil Jerram wrote:
> 
> > >>>>> "Keisuke" == Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >     Keisuke> Hello, The patch attached below implements four macros,
> >     Keisuke> SCM_CALL_0, SCM_CALL_1, SCM_CALL_2, and SCM_CALL_3, as
> >     Keisuke> follows: [...]
> >
> >     Keisuke> Is this a good patch?  Can I apply it?
> >
> > I'm inclined against it.  The benefit does not seem sufficient to
> > outweigh the cost, which is to obscure calls of scm_apply.
> >
> > Instead, some of the cases that you suggest changing could be tidied
> > up a bit by using the appropriate SCM_LISTn macro.
> 
> But, I have always had problems to understand the way parameters have to
> be passed to scm_apply.  Therefore, I think Keisuke does bring up a point
> which could actually need improvement.

Amen.

I was just looking at moving from the gh_ interface to scm_.  There are
plenty of gh_callN functions that are basically Keisuke's macros.  I
think the macros would be very helpful in smoothing the transition from
gh_.

-Dale
-- 
Dale P. Smith
Treasurer, Cleveland Linux Users Group http://cleveland.lug.net
Senior Systems Consultant, Altus Technologies Corporation
address@hidden
440-746-9000 x309