From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE? Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:59:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87aa52sttk.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87d39zdqhd.fsf@netris.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328093987 7626 80.91.229.3 (1 Feb 2012 10:59:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 10:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 01 11:59:46 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RsXub-0005Zo-Vk for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:59:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35382 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsXub-0007Tv-04 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:59:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:45777) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsXuT-0007TT-Hv for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:59:35 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsXuP-0000rz-2V for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:59:29 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:59865 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RsXuO-0000rp-W9 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:59:25 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2356BBE; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:59:23 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=xHXhWpVWWfy0E6zpcaiCpIjgcB8=; b=xXKQVK 1ZYd5cAHzUR7oE8TnUBuv5TEngPhXNca4wcqQ5ejEVD3QwlHuzZDKJSsLfC0mFCR gjQ2zQvth/7gsBnm8EKBXh3bhjlqgURlGb8nf2ckX8Wn6nkLc0C96QjJr8tPEqhO ffNW/n0L5sXTcUHhDP3GQjeUk+t4r8VGshPFk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Qmj3yrj5Ug06cuzdUR7etM0XQp4JyU/Z H0BvgemEnnItfzyD1PizgsJg1fUHwNM+GS3E1tIIuKmYWtAcCZlmEMAKhxe8DJhx LyE5n3T47qG2B+fg1+4wgsfuXVaaFA5bC4G/lL33NS0XdG4fYrGKo0GQ9f/dGCdD wgQ32DXuyuQ= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C41C96BBD; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:59:23 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [85.50.103.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 323866BBC; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 05:59:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d39zdqhd.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:20:30 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: CCA3C87E-4CC3-11E1-B7B0-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13770 Archived-At: On Wed 01 Feb 2012 07:20, Mark H Weaver writes: > Should we add 'scm_to_pointer'? For most other accessors, the trend > seems to be to discourage use of C macros and move people over to C > functions instead. With that in mind, it seems inconsistent to have > people using SCM_POINTER_VALUE for lack of a C function to do this job. > > What do you think? Sounds like a great idea to me. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/