Re: gc question

2011-05-09 Thread Andy Wingo
On Mon 09 May 2011 11:14, r...@tuxteam.de writes: > am I correct in assuming that the return value from > scm_from_locale_keyword("unknown"); > won't ever be garbage collected od do I have to protect > it? I was about to answer: No, this is not correct. Keywords can be garbage-collected.

Re: gc question

2011-05-09 Thread rixed
-[ Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:34:21AM +0200, r...@tuxteam.de ] > But that talk was about symbols (which might well go aut of scope), im > asking about _keywords_ whose semantics seem to be different. Sorry I'm too new to notice the difference.

Re: gc question

2011-05-09 Thread rm
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:05:42AM +0200, ri...@happyleptic.org wrote: > -[ Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:14:11AM +0200, r...@tuxteam.de ] > > am I correct in assuming that the return value from > > scm_from_locale_keyword("unknown"); > > won't ever be garbage collected od do I have to protect > >

Re: gc question

2011-05-09 Thread rixed
-[ Mon, May 09, 2011 at 11:14:11AM +0200, r...@tuxteam.de ] > am I correct in assuming that the return value from > scm_from_locale_keyword("unknown"); > won't ever be garbage collected od do I have to protect > it? >From an IRC discussion some time ago: 16:11 < rixed> BTW, is it required t

gc question

2011-05-09 Thread rm
Dear list, am I correct in assuming that the return value from scm_from_locale_keyword("unknown"); won't ever be garbage collected od do I have to protect it? TIA Ralf Mattes