From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: SCM_BOOL_F == 0 and BDW-GC Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:21:24 +0200 Message-ID: <87ab0pjzvv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k52uvhnt.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <20090702142823.GA1401@fibril.netris.org> <877hyqk8bx.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <20090703153218.GA1382@fibril.netris.org> <20090705024135.GA2363@fibril.netris.org> <20090707111406.GA1388@fibril.netris.org> <87iqg5y2o8.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> <87zl9fps1m.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87iqfhgrjy.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87hbv11a04.fsf@gnu.org> <87zl8sc6yg.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1253467329 23073 80.91.229.12 (20 Sep 2009 17:22:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:22:09 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Sep 20 19:22:02 2009 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 1MpQ6s-0002pk-8d for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:22:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46773 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MpQ6r-0002G6-Ow for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:22:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MpQ6k-0002Fi-Uo for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:21:55 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MpQ6f-0002FA-Ni for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:21:53 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=51497 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MpQ6f-0002F7-LA for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:21:49 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:47314) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MpQ6f-0005ag-9D for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:21:49 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MpQ6c-0002mT-3U for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:21:46 +0200 Original-Received: from 78.251.23.100 ([78.251.23.100]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:21:46 +0200 Original-Received: from ludo by 78.251.23.100 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:21:46 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 78.251.23.100 X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Jour de la Raison de =?iso-8859-1?Q?l'Ann=E9e?= 217 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:qRZpY8O4yA0KMW1/UYC4BOZW+RQ= X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:9363 Archived-At: Hello, Neil Jerram writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> Ugly stuff like ‘scm_fixup_weak_alist ()’ would still be needed. > > Thanks, I understand now. scm_fixup_weak_alist looks OK to me. Surely > we must have had something like that with Guile GC too? (Except that it > was probably mixed up with the GC'ing code, and so was even uglier!) Well, indeed. >>> SCM_UNDEFINED == 0 is sounding promising... >> >> Yeah. Sorry for the false hope about SCM_BOOL_F == 0. > > So are you going to try out SCM_UNDEFINED == 0 ? Who, me? :-) I’ll add it to my to-do list and report back, then. Thanks, Ludo’.