Re: SCM_CALL_N

[Dirk Herrmann]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Keisuke Nishida wrote:

> At Tue, 26 Jun 2001 17:04:53 +0200 (MEST),
> Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> > 
> > What about the idea to provide scm_listify as scm_list_n, used as
> >   scm_list_n (arg1, arg2, ..., SCM_UNDEFINED)
> > ?  Note that we can't name it scm_list, because of name conflicts.  But,
> > it may be a good idea to use `n´ as a postfix anyway.

Just a side note:  One of my favourite suggestions for a new naming
pattern of libguile functions is, (if you for a second forget about the
pain :-) to use a scm_p_* prefix for functions, which are also primitives.  
The nice thing is, that you immediately know that scm_p_* functions will
return a SCM value and only take SCM arguments.  Given that idea once was
realized, a name like scm_list was available again, because the primitive
would be named scm_p_list.

> Looks nice.  Okay, how many functions do we want?  In libguile,
> the following number of macros (+ a function) are used:
> 
>   SCM_LIST0:    0
>   SCM_LIST1:   79
>   SCM_LIST2:   41
>   SCM_LIST3:   39
>   SCM_LIST4:    8
>   SCM_LIST5:    6
>   SCM_LIST6:    0
>   SCM_LIST7:    0
>   SCM_LIST8:    0
>   SCM_LIST9:    0
>   scm_listify:  6
> 
> Do we want scm_list_0 to scm_list_9 anyway?

I'd say, forget about scm_list_0.  With respect to the others, we should
at least provide those which are used in libguile (egoistic point of
view, isn't it?).  About the rest up to 9 I don't know/mind.

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann