Re: SCM_CALL_N

[Marius Vollmer]

Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden>, writes:

> Probably right.  What about the following functinos?
> 
>   scm_call_0 (proc);
>   scm_call_1 (proc, arg1);
>   scm_call_2 (proc, arg1, arg2);
>   scm_call_3 (proc, arg1, arg2, arg3);

Accepted.
 
>   scm_apply_0 (proc, args);

Wouldn't this rather be

    scm_apply_1 (proc, args);
    scm_apply_2 (proc, arg1, args);

etc?

> Should we name these functions scm_xxx_N or scm_xxxN?

I'm in favor of scm_xxx_N.

> Also, should we create a new functions scm_list_N, replacing
> the existing macros SCM_LIST_N?

Yep, I'd say so.


Additionally, what about

    scm_call_n (proc, n, ...);
    scm_apply_n (proc, n, ...);

where the number of arguments is given explicitely.