Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> More apparent array dodginess in the head,
>
> (let ((a (make-array #f '(425 425
> (array-in-bounds? a 0))
> => #t
Should be fixed now.
2005-06-06 Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* unif.c (scm_array_in_bounds_p): First test
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to know whether one can reliably allocate a cell on its own,
> without using `scm_cell ()'.
No.
> So my question is: Is there a way to allocate cells, cheaper than
> `scm_cell ()', that could be used?
If there is a cheaper way (very
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> guile> (eval-enable 'foo)
>> throw from within critical section.
>> Geannuleerd
>> muurbloem:~/src/lilypond$
>
> FWIW, I believe this is also covered by a comment that I recently
> added in scm_eval_options_interface.
Yep:
2005
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Thanks! I applied it.
>
> I already made a fix (from the head by Han-Wen) in chars.h which
> covers this, by stopping signed values getting into the value field of
> a char SCM (there's 24 or 56 bits there).
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I propose that the SCM_NECONSP fix is good enough in practice, and
> would like to release it into 1.6.x. Any objections?
Not from me!
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
__
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Oops. Is there any harm in having it fixed in both places?
Shouldn't be.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
