On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 14:27:15 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
[snip]
> No, I cannot give you hard and fast rules for woods. I still have my
> preferences, and there are reasons for them. And there may be
> multiple reasons that are mostly independent.
I wasn't asking for rules. I was trying to extra
Chris Vine writes:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:54:50 +0200
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Chris Vine writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:26:27 +0200
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >
>> >> Also, a pointer to an array (rather than something more opaque like
>> >> SCM) is much more likely to be subject
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 10:54:50 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Chris Vine writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:26:27 +0200
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >> Also, a pointer to an array (rather than something more opaque like
> >> SCM) is much more likely to be subject to strength reduction and
> >>
Chris Vine writes:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:26:27 +0200
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Also, a pointer to an array (rather than something more opaque like
>> SCM) is much more likely to be subject to strength reduction and
>> address arithmetic by the compiler, leading to a situation where
>> loopi
On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:26:27 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Chris Vine writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:35:09 +0100
> > Chris Vine wrote:
> >> I think you were trying to answer my question, which was: "... is
> >> the point that the scm_remember_upto_here_* functions are in
> >> practice only
Chris Vine writes:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:35:09 +0100
> Chris Vine wrote:
>> I think you were trying to answer my question, which was: "... is the
>> point that the scm_remember_upto_here_* functions are in practice only
>> needed for smobs which provide their own free function?" (that is,
>>
