From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Vollmer Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Critical section review Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:34:56 +0100 Message-ID: <87acou11xb.fsf@zagadka.de> References: <424125C0.7000407@ossau.uklinux.net> <66e540fe050323010240b4da11@mail.gmail.com> <4241CF4A.8070906@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1111613716 2028 80.91.229.2 (23 Mar 2005 21:35:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se, guile-devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 23 22:35:15 2005 Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DEDTr-0005QN-2B for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:33:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DEDlQ-0007Zj-HZ for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:51:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DEDlL-0007ZV-9d for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:51:39 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DEDlK-0007ZJ-JJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:51:39 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DEDlK-0007Z8-Ft for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:51:38 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.253.8.218] (helo=mail.dokom.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DEDVB-0000gh-Pl for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:34:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [195.253.17.225] (helo=zagadka.ping.de) by mail.dokom.net with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DEDVA-0003ts-VK for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2005 22:34:57 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 13772 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Mar 2005 21:34:56 -0000 Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <4241CF4A.8070906@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:19:22 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) 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 X-MailScanner-To: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4868 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:4868 Neil Jerram writes: > Thanks. So this is now just: > SCM_RETURN_NEWSMOB (scm_tc16_memoized, scm_cons (exp, env)); > > which is a completely mechanical change except that one > SCM_UNPACK(...) has become ((scm_t_bits) ...) - is the definition of > SCM_NEWSMOB correct in using (scm_t_bits) rather than SCM_UNPACK ? The definition of SCM_NEWSMOB is correct; its prototype is SCM SCM_NEWSMOB (scm_t_bits tag, scm_t_bits data); However, if you want to use a SCM value as the data of a smob, you need to use SCM_UNPACK to convert that SCM into a scm_t_bits: SCM_RETURN_NEWSMOB (scm_tc16_memoized, SCM_UNPACK (scm_cons (exp, env))); -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel