>static const scm_t_bits my_false = 0x4;
>static const scm_t_bits my_true = 0x404;
>static const scm_t_bits my_nil = 0x104;
>static const scm_t_bits my_eof = 0xa04;
>static const scm_t_bits my_eol = 0x304;
>static const scm_t_bits my_unspecified = 0x804;
I get slightly diff
>static const scm_t_bits my_false = 0x4;
>static const scm_t_bits my_true = 0x404;
>static const scm_t_bits my_nil = 0x104;
>static const scm_t_bits my_eof = 0xa04;
>static const scm_t_bits my_eol = 0x304;
>static const scm_t_bits my_unspecified = 0x804;
I see it is not com
>> The reason is accessing macros from languages
>> other than C is cumbersome.
>
> Apologies for ignoring you.
Hi, Wingo, Hi, All,
No need to apologise, given your track record I trust you spending
every minute of your time for a good purpose. :)
Lack of time is a good evolutionary filter agains
> Yeah. Though here, you could still write bindings for ‘scm_from_int32’
> (the real function) instead of ‘scm_from_int’, for instance, no?
Right.
I assume there was a reason to introduce scm_to/from_int macros
and that it gets defined to either -32 or -64 versions depending on
the build/platfor
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?). Ab
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> For use from a Fortran program I am collecting API fixes for libguile.so
>> as wrapper functions for what is provided to C-programs as macros.
>> I noted that some of the macros are function-macros some are symbol
>> macros. An example o
Hi, Noah, Hi Guilers,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Noah Lavine wrote:
> It looks like you're right, and strangely enough there's a comment in
> sort.c right above the definition of sorted? that has the correct
> documentation.
Yes, that added me some confidence.
> I hope other people will c
