[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: scm_num2long
|
From: |
Bill Schottstaedt |
|
Subject: |
Re: scm_num2long |
|
Date: |
Thu, 12 Apr 2001 06:36:34 -0700 |
> IMO, it is a sensible change
I agree! I wasn't complaining. I would (or actually do) use
SCM_NUM2LONG instead, but it has FUNC_NAME built in -- the
reason I was using this rather than gh_scm2int was to be able
to pass the caller down the call chain, making internal
debugging easier. (I'm typing from memory here, so expect
name confusion).