On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 07:47:13PM +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> > OTOH, http://community.schemewiki.org/?variable-naming-convention
> > suggests a different naming convention.
>
> Now that really is a horrible convention. Hmm, how can we best
> conf
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Yep. But what about an inline function? There is some machinery in
> inline.h for this and we already use it for scm_cell, for example.
Was some of the change to scm_is_whatever meant to keep the
representation of an SCM value out of application bin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IOW, making the inlining machinery easily usable is not that easy, and,
>well, I'm lazy too. ;-) Do you have a suggestion for this?
Yes, Just Do It :-)
___
Guile-devel mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> OTOH, http://community.schemewiki.org/?variable-naming-convention
> suggests a different naming convention.
Now that really is a horrible convention. Hmm, how can we best
confuse someone coming to Scheme from another language for the first
time?
For
Hi,
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep. But what about an inline function? There is some machinery in
> inline.h for this and we already use it for scm_cell, for example.
I'm all in favor of inline functions. But since we want to support
compilers that don't support inlining, we
Hi,
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What other *star* names do we have? I can only think of *features*.
We don't have any other star name, but so far we did not export any
fluid, only getters and setters (e.g., `current-module'). The most
important thing is to be consistent with the
