Neil Jerram wrote:
> FWIW, dropping "lisp_" looks OK, but I'm not sure about dropping
> "and_". "scm_is_false_not_nil" feels notably harder to understand
> than "scm_is_false_and_not_nil".
Yes, I see your point, and I agree.
Mark
Mark H Weaver writes:
> I agree that the names are uncomfortably long. We could shorten them
> without much loss of clarity by replacing "lisp_nil" with "nil" and
> "and_not" with "not", yielding:
>
> scm_is_false_assume_not_nil scm_is_true_assume_not_nil
> scm_is_false_not_nil scm_
I wrote:
> > I added the following macros, whose names explicitly state how %nil
> > should be handled. See the comments in the patch for more information
> > about these.
> >
> > scm_is_false_assume_not_lisp_nil scm_is_true_assume_not_lisp_nil
> > scm_is_false_and_not_lisp_nil scm_is_tru
Neil Jerram writes:
> because if we agreed this, some of the changes would be needed, or
> wouldn't be needed.
:-)
I think I meant to say "would be different, or wouldn't be needed".
Neil
Andy Wingo writes:
>> scm_is_false_assume_not_lisp_nil scm_is_true_assume_not_lisp_nil
>> scm_is_false_and_not_lisp_nil scm_is_true_or_lisp_nil
>> scm_is_false_or_lisp_nil scm_is_true_and_not_lisp_nil
>>
>> scm_is_lisp_false scm_is_lisp_true
>>
>> scm_is_nu
So, finally, here we go with these patches. (again! :-))
In summary, they all look great, and I just have a few minor comments
(below) on the first one.
But I guess we need to decide on your suggestion about
> (I still believe that these should be changed to versions that handle
> %nil properl
I'm sorry, I typed the wrong keys and sent this response prematurely.
I'll finish off the review and send a complete response later on!
Neil
Neil Jerram writes:
> So, finally, here we go with these patches.
>
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Attached are patches to optimize %nil handling, alo
So, finally, here we go with these patches.
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Attached are patches to optimize %nil handling, along with some fixes
> to %nil-handling bugs, as I outlined in my recent posts.
>
> Four patches are attached. The first.patch is the most important, and
> is a prerequisite for
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> This is also not a patch review yet :)
>
> On Thu 09 Jul 2009 18:11, Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> I added the following macros, whose names explicitly state how %nil
>> should be handled. See the comments in the patch for more information
>> about these.
Hi Mark
Hi Mark,
This is also not a patch review yet :)
On Thu 09 Jul 2009 18:11, Mark H Weaver writes:
> I added the following macros, whose names explicitly state how %nil
> should be handled. See the comments in the patch for more information
> about these.
>
> scm_is_false_assume_not_lisp_nil s
10 matches
Mail list logo
