Re: scm_num2float() ?

[Michael Livshin]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> However, this would still give 42 functions (instead of 21 if we use
> the reduced set of conversion functions).

it looks like you think that many functions is bad.  I disagree:

* in terms of space overhead, 21 small functions is nothing.

* maintenance overhead is nonexistent, if we generate these functions
  from macro "templates", like now.

* cognitive overhead is also nonexistent -- you just say "for every
  standard C integral type foo, there are scm_num2foo_ext, scm_num2foo
  and scm_foo2num".

-- 
Entropy isn't what it used to be.