From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Neil Jerram" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid `SCM_VALIDATE_LIST ()' Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:19:12 +0200 Message-ID: <49dd78620809011319t5c888475sf58bb00265ce9f35@mail.gmail.com> References: <87hc90u9lb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1220300433 6292 80.91.229.12 (1 Sep 2008 20:20:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: hanwen@xs4all.nl Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 01 22:21:27 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KaFtD-0004g7-Oa for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:20:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50659 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaFsE-0004Qu-Ja for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:19:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaFrn-0004Ck-Nw for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:19:15 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KaFrl-0004C5-Su for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:19:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58191 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KaFrl-0004Bs-KG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.250]:15712) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KaFrl-0005gH-9X for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:19:13 -0400 Original-Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so2043392rvb.6 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=q0LK0/I8VGWl3LZ2Fvv6xYTAq9vF1Tp2Y1UAwFqaywI=; b=f6UXmkqw3YD54wG0XyFkev2nTI4W7X0hWyd0bMg4PzD4ze03dw7lrWL5wp2brurNR7 0komZNNm/FEI83iRj/5QR9jCWmXEN7SDdIx2ln/YcXzYg1WsjeWuOrMxkwcIbkG7ypHP 0memGonWI7LMlGTU+qNJ0eAPvjaes/4LtTM7o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=VT4mOC8P4oVJv/jZG3CLFQXPzjbs1NfkyRMi8a/6kurFn39UJvbxM7Ov+UuODNILmv 1JAsavnLGdEHef44wd1E0LCbgS7m5zekB27NdC003CDv+zIcmASefykb2LpZJQlNDVBe aPAJQV08sqDhVpFWVuRK2qKJZa02sSvOEXw9A= Original-Received: by 10.141.37.8 with SMTP id p8mr3658912rvj.256.1220300352482; Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.141.177.4 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Sep 2008 13:19:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7568 Archived-At: 2008/9/1 Han-Wen Nienhuys : > > On a tangent, is anyone still seriously considering to run Emacs atop GUILE? Running a whole Emacs on top of Guile? - no. Running some Emacs Lisp code on top of Guile? - yes. But I admit that what I have in mind is still vaporware right now. So I guess that if Guile's current infrastructure for trying to support Elisp became a serious obstacle to progress, we should not rule out dropping it. > + for (; !SCM_NULL_OR_NIL_P (lst); lst = SCM_CDR (lst)) > + { > + SCM_VALIDATE_CONS (2, lst); > > Looks cleaner to use SCM_CONS_P (or whatever it is called) as loop guard, > so it is obviously correct, and crash if the lst is not properly terminated > after the loop (- perhaps only if we're not compiling in optimizing mode). I don't think we should do that. I agree that the code would _look_ cleaner and more obviously correct, but in fact the code _is_ correct, and changing it would lose the Elisp support. And I don't think the code as it stands is (anywhere near) so obscure as to justify losing that. Regards, Neil