Re: [PATCH] %nil-handling optimization and fixes v1

[Neil Jerram]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

>>   scm_is_false_assume_not_lisp_nil  scm_is_true_assume_not_lisp_nil
>>   scm_is_false_and_not_lisp_nil     scm_is_true_or_lisp_nil
>>   scm_is_false_or_lisp_nil          scm_is_true_and_not_lisp_nil
>>
>>   scm_is_lisp_false                 scm_is_lisp_true
>>
>>   scm_is_null_assume_not_lisp_nil
>>   scm_is_null_and_not_lisp_nil
>>   scm_is_null_or_lisp_nil
>>
>>   scm_is_bool_and_not_lisp_nil
>>   scm_is_bool_or_lisp_nil
>
> These are terrible names. But they seem to be the best names for the
> concepts we're trying to express. I don't understand all of them yet,
> will wait for a review -- unless Neil takes care of that before I do ;-)

I actually feel quite comfortable with them, now that I've read the
patch carefully.  Mark's comments above the macro definitions seem
helpful and sufficient to me.

Regards,
     Neil