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: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:19:15 +0200 Message-ID: <49dd78620809070919t2f8c903cx17a1b7b075a0f506@mail.gmail.com> References: <87hc90u9lb.fsf@gnu.org> <49dd78620809061545h1a1aa8e4t8e4c10772ab5b137@mail.gmail.com> <49dd78620809070638p1498c537u8488ddb87109b6f4@mail.gmail.com> 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 1220804379 13811 80.91.229.12 (7 Sep 2008 16:19:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: hanwen@xs4all.nl Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 07 18:20:34 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 1KcMzy-00044E-9w for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:20:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35114 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KcMyy-0001Bi-AG for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcMys-0001BZ-ES for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:18 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KcMyq-0001B7-TC for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48013 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KcMyq-0001B4-Nn for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:16 -0400 Original-Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.242]:55605) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KcMyq-0000dB-M3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:19:16 -0400 Original-Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id k29so1145225rvb.6 for ; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:19:15 -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=ruWGEWUwNglDKBdkQ2SkkhxZO2nVlk5E+UnbL+t0BOk=; b=Ei9sL3i02Fsf4uujKtTQGi+hWVZRYAx/k9sB63ZiGwbCNrQ6qGu5WN8CCblcm5PyuG UEsFNa6nrEOiz3fgKmvj8l1tVqwJrjWN5VoxoPiQLH/Kec/2pVi1zfZ+4HSEWit3aSwS f1oGocPh3MvkcvqKifGz7BsmPRE1xUTHRrtuM= 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=AvM7gI9rg7aA7PKxVyY06Th3J44uIuztd2iM+5q89NG7dBCeOpldpRYEzJnzHo2XW4 /3cJfzZZpChPqs/clkFxhxENku5B7pCRfGUx3NEVId9wW/mQh4eAiClVGu+iu0PYyayT L1qyKrrUVDQdMERANQjWs0PRXmBxO9p6vp4Bw= Original-Received: by 10.141.189.4 with SMTP id r4mr8160066rvp.226.1220804355531; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.141.177.4 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Sep 2008 09:19:15 -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:7612 Archived-At: 2008/9/7 Han-Wen Nienhuys : > > Actually, since the couple of cleanups (or as some on this list like > to say: 'cleanups') I did, the GC has become a lot more simple. Actually I did get that impression, from my look so far at your cleanup patch - i.e. that it is now easier to understand than it was in the past. But I need to spend more time on it. Since you mention 'cleanups', I must say that I agree with Ludovic, that it would have been preferable to post the patch for review/discussion before committing it, since that is our (majority) current practice. Sure there may have been a few exceptions, but only for trivial changes, I believe, and I don't believe that this was - overall - a trivial change. (I'm aware that it has lots of trivial bits in it, but I don't think it's all trivial.) (I also think it's arguable that actually committing to a branch is more convenient, for author and reviewers, than juggling emails - but that then leads on to other questions, like what expectations people can have of the "master" branch, and why we are using Git like CVS...) > It's > not really that difficult, you just have to take a more global view of > the interpreter. The nice thing about GC is that if you break it, it > tends break all over the place in obvious ways. Usually, you can't > even get to the 'guile>' prompt. That is indeed a good point! > Please feel free to dive in and bug me with questions. I am always > very eager to help people that will take over code maintenance duties > from me :-) Will do, thanks. Neil