> > > I'm already writing a section called "C/Scheme interface" where I > > explain that scm_integer_p (x) == SCM_BOOL_T isn't correct. > > Well, it works as long as scm_is_eq works the same as ==. But that's an > implementation detail of Guile and not part of the Guile API. Bypassing > the Guile API here does not buy us anything regarding efficiency, and it > is not helpful for debugging and newcomers who should not be required to > know internals of Guile. >
Of course, this is bizarre for newcomers... But there's something else that actually mislead me before we started working on this. In the Guile reference, it is written that scm_string_p returns #t or #f. And it is also written that scm_is_string returns 0 or 1. Because it isn't written SCM_BOOL_T and SCM_BOOL_F, I always thought 0 and 1 were Scheme values. This, of course, totally broke my understanding of these functions. I pointed out this logical error in the piece of doc I will push. It is somewhat amusing, by the way, that Lilypond's to_boolean is > required in order to let '() and #f be interpreted in the same manner. > It would seem that Lisp's conflating them into `nil' is not the worst > idea. This also mislead me a long time ago. Bertrand
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
