"Michael J. Barillier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Am I needlessly worrying about this?
Yep. When there are no more pointers to an object, it's reaped.
> Will the list returned from scm_c_eval_string be garbage-collected,
Yep.
(I'd thought a couple of times it'd be nice to be able to expli
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Was some of the change to scm_is_whatever meant to keep the
> representation of an SCM value out of application binaries?
No, it was about having a clean distinction between functions that
return SCM booleans (scm_whatever_p) and those that return C boolea
Hi,
In `next_fluid_num ()', an `scm_gc ()' call was systematically triggered
at startup time. This patch fixes this.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
2005-12-16 Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* fluids.c (next_fluid_num): Don't trigger the GC when
ALLOCATED_FLUIDS_LEN is zero.
--- ori
I'd appreciate someone confirming that scm_c_eval_string doesn't leak
memory. From strports.c:
,
| SCM
| scm_c_eval_string (const char *expr)
| {
| return scm_eval_string (scm_makfrom0str (expr));
| }
`
(NB: This is from guile-1.6.7 - the CVS version has scm_makfrom0str
d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Han-Wen Nienhuys) writes:
> Yes, Just Do It :-)
Since, I consider compilers that don't support inlining unimportant, I'd
happily live without the `inline.c' stuff. I.e., I'd put this in
`pairs.h':
static SCM_C_INLINE int
scm_is_pair (...)
With compilers not supporting in
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 08:32:02AM +, Neil Jerram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas Zerolo) writes:
>
> > 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
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For `current-reader' I think we should stick as we are.
Then, should we go ahead and remove the `current-module' and
`set-current-module' procedures in favor of `current-module' as a fluid?
By not exporting the fluid directly, my original patch kept away
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomas Zerolo) writes:
> 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
