Quote from http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2001-06/msg00348.html
>> Do we want scm_list_0 to scm_list_9 anyway? > > I'd say, forget about scm_list_0. With respect to the others, we should > at least provide those which are used in libguile (egoistic point of > view, isn't it?). About the rest up to 9 I don't know/mind. Hi, All, To raise this question again: I ended up with a wrapper function for a Fortran project equivalent to the scm_list_0() quoted below. The reason is accessing macros from languages other than C is cumbersome. Contrary to scm_from/to_int, scm_is_* and other macros adding this as a funciton one is a no-brainer, since it would be a new API call and raises no compatibility concerns. What do you think? Do you count from 0 or from 1? Alexei P.S.: the next on my which list would be scm_undefined(). $ git diff libguile/list.c diff --git a/libguile/list.c b/libguile/list.c index 8297b17..e253510 100644 --- a/libguile/list.c +++ b/libguile/list.c @@ -41,6 +41,12 @@ } while (0) SCM +scm_list_0 () +{ + return SCM_EOL; /* macro */ +} + +SCM scm_list_1 (SCM e1) { SCM c1;