Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> 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
