Re: No gh_set_x()?

[Brett Viren]

Sam Tregar writes:
 > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Brett Viren wrote:
 > 
 > > I asked this a while back.  You can use gh_define().
 > 
 > I had assumed gh_define() established top-level bindings like (define).
 > How is this a replacement for a gh_set_x()?

I guess to get the equiv of set! you need to check if the symbol
exists before using gh_define().  But, I am no expert.  Below is the
reply I got when I asked this.  Hope it helps.

-B.

Michael Livshin writes:
 > Brett Viren <address@hidden> writes:
 > 
 > > I can't seem to find a gh_set() C function.  What is the equivalent to
 > > the scheme `set!' procedure when calling from C?
 > 
 > `set!' is not a procedure.  it's an "overloaded" syntax for two
 > different things:
 > 
 > * changing the binding of a lexical variable.  this is impossible to
 >   express in C.
 > 
 > * changing the binding of a top-level variable.  this would be
 >   possible to do if the concept of a top-level variable (or a module)
 >   was somehow exported in the gh_ interface, but it is not.
 > 
 > so I guess that you want to achieve the effect of `set!'ing a
 > top-level variable.  `gh_define' should do the trick, I believe.
 > 
 > -- 
 > Think of C++ as an object-oriented assembly language.
 >