On Thu 31 Jan 2013 17:57, Alexei Matveev writes:
>>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 cons
>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
I don't know much about language interfaces, but why not have these be
constants exported by libguile.so? Is there any reason for other languages
to have to make their own lists?
Thanks,
Noah
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Thu 31 Jan 2013 12:27, Andy Wingo writes:
>
On Thu 31 Jan 2013 12:27, Andy Wingo writes:
> On Tue 22 Jan 2013 11:55, Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> SCM_BOOL_F
>> SCM_BOOL_T
>> SCM_ELISP_NIL
>> SCM_EOF_VAL
>> SCM_EOL
>> SCM_UNBOUND
>> SCM_UNDEFINED
>> SCM_UNSPECIFIED
>>
> Instead, users should just keep a t
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 11:55, Andy Wingo writes:
> [trimming out guile-user]
>
> For me, here is the list of symbols with no C counterpart, followed by a
> commented list of all of them.
>
> Symbols that a non-C program would need to interact with Guile:
>
> SCM_BOOL_F
> SCM_BOOL_T
> S
[trimming out guile-user]
For me, here is the list of symbols with no C counterpart, followed by a
commented list of all of them.
Symbols that a non-C program would need to interact with Guile:
SCM_BOOL_F
SCM_BOOL_T
SCM_ELISP_NIL
SCM_EOF_VAL
SCM_EOL
SCM_UNBOUND
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Mon 14 Jan 2013 23:44, Alexei Matveev writes:
>
>> scm_to_int();
>> scm_is_true();
>> scm_is_symbol();
>> scm_is_null();
>
> We can change these to inline functions, no problem. They would also
> get an out-of-line version written to the .so, so that should
On Mon 14 Jan 2013 23:44, Alexei Matveev writes:
> scm_to_int();
> scm_is_true();
> scm_is_symbol();
> scm_is_null();
We can change these to inline functions, no problem. They would also
get an out-of-line version written to the .so, so that should work for
you too.
It seems that we ca
>> 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
Hi Alexei,
On Mon 02 Jul 2012 13:11, Alexei Matveev writes:
> To raise this question again: I ended up with a wrapper
> function for a Fortran project equivalent to the scm_list_0()
> quoted below. The reason is accessing macros from languages
> other than C is cumbersome.
>
> Contrary to scm_fr
11 matches
Mail list logo
