Re: Removal of SCM_UNBOUND

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

On 4/16/06, Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 4/16/06, Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> wrote:
> > (define x (if #f #f))
> > (slot-set! quux 'bar x)
>
> Actually, I notice that I read your post sloppily.  SCM_UNDEFINED
> might work, but I think you should check that thoroughly.

While putting together my daugther's Easter egg, I suddenly realized
that the thing that mght bite you is that many parts of GOOPS is
written in Scheme so that, if this UNBOUND value is eqv? to
SCM_UNDEFINED, things go wrong as soon as any Scheme primitive, used
by GOOPS itself, happen to get this value passed in an optional
argument.

I think there *are* instances like this so that making them eqv?
really does introduce a bug.  But even if it doesn't right now, having
them eqv? seems likely to introduce future bugs.

M