From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: port initialization? Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:07:46 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <15698.63938.662945.203556@blauw.xs4all.nl> References: <15693.15724.416839.636665@blauw.xs4all.nl> <15698.51297.309966.488279@blauw.xs4all.nl> <87hei52it4.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: hanwen@cs.uu.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028847870 1066 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2002 23:04:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:04:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Marius Vollmer , guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cwKR-0000Gs-00 for ; Fri, 09 Aug 2002 01:04:27 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cwL3-0001mH-00; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:05:05 -0400 Original-Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17cwKX-0001lG-00 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 19:04:33 -0400 Original-Received: from blauw.xs4all.nl (blauw.xs4all.nl [213.84.26.127]) by smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id g78N4UUh068183; Fri, 9 Aug 2002 01:04:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <87hei52it4.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> X-Mailer: VM 7.05 under Emacs 21.2.1 Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1034 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1034 mvo@zagadka.ping.de writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys writes: > > > We could have a scm_add_to_port_table() that returns an SCM, that > > would be less error prone > > That SCM would be the port cell, right? That would be cleaner, yes. OK. Changed it. Should we have a compatibility function? (i.e. is the old scm_add_to_port_table part of the public C interface of guile?) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | hanwen@cs.uu.nl | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel