Re: memory.text

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Very nice.  I like the concept as well as the function names you are
> suggesting.

Thanks! :-)

> What about naming the function scm_make_cell, or scm_new_cell?

I named it scm_alloc_cell and scm_alloc_double_cell.  Not sure if that
are better names than yours... 

> There is, however, something we should think about:  car and cdr are, in
> your example, of type scm_t_bits.

Yes, but I so badly wanted to make the car, cbr, ccr, cdr pun for
double cells... The manual talks about word_0, etc.

> If the new cell won't be a pair we should not use the terms car and
> cdr, but rather word0 and word1 or something.  Further, we should
> not use word1 as an argument for scm_remember_upto_here, since that
> only accepts SCM values.  It is, however, not clean to coerce word1
> to a SCM value with SCM_PACK either, since that turns something into
> a SCM value that not necessarily represents a real SCM object.
> Hmmm?

Yes, good point.  Without real preemptive threads, we don't need the
call, so we don't have a problem now.