Re: thanks

[Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen at cs dot uu dot nl>]

(trimmed jim off th eCC list)

silovic@zesoi.fer.hr writes:
> Greg Harvey <Greg.Harvey@thezone.net> writes:
> common. Also, it is implementation independant if you provide gh_cons
> - then gc_protect is just
> 
> global_protect_list = gh_cons (object, gh_protect_list);
> 
> (while this would be rather inefficient for unprotects - you might
> want to provide gh interface for hash tables and use them instead).


This is something for the documentation (hell, anyone listening ?).  I
had lots of performance problems when I used scm_unprotect. I finally
solved it by making my own protect_list (which I could junk in one
fell swoop.)
> 
> > be a collection of useful abstractions that allow you to do what you
> > want, without exposing you to exactly how it's done inside guile.
> 
> I think this is an issue to discuss.
> 
> Many parts of scm_ interface are just straigtforward C bindings of
> RnRS. For example, scm_cons, scm_assq_* etc is just Scheme directly
> translated into C. This seems like a reasonably

as an aside, as the gh_ interface is more high-level, I expected it to
do more typechecking, but was disappointed. Are there any thoughts on
providing an interface that doesn't dump core when you pass it the
wrong type of argument?

-- 

Han-Wen Nienhuys, hanwen@cs.uu.nl ** GNU LilyPond - The Music Typesetter 
      http://www.cs.uu.nl/people/hanwen/lilypond/index.html