Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> + "Program arguments are held in a fluid and therefore have a\n"
>>> + "separate value in each Guile thread.")
>>
>> That's surprising; why is that?
>
> Tell me and we'll both know :).
Fair enough :-). I just thought you might have come acro
Incidentally, I called the scheme func "scm_set_program_arguments_scm",
because plain "scm_set_program_arguments" is taken by the C interface.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> (I wondered about (set-program-arguments . lst) instead of
> (set-program-arguments lst), but I suspect cases where you already
> have a list in hand will be more common.)
Yes, especially if you got it from a (program-arguments) call.
>> +"Progr
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about making scm_set_program_arguments() available at the scheme
> level too? As say
>
> (set-program-arguments lst)
>
> (without the "first" arg business of the C level).
>
> The C func is good for when you munch some options at the C level in
>
