* Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE?
@ 2012-02-01 6:20 Mark H Weaver
2012-02-01 10:59 ` Andy Wingo
2012-02-02 21:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark H Weaver @ 2012-02-01 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
I was chatting with rcfox on #guile, who needed to extract the C pointer
from a SCM pointer object, from C code. In this case, it was a C
callback created using 'procedure->pointer'.
I tried to discourage him from using SCM_POINTER_VALUE, because it's
undocumented and will embed internal details of our representation into
his binary, but he was undeterred :)
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?
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE?
2012-02-01 6:20 Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE? Mark H Weaver
@ 2012-02-01 10:59 ` Andy Wingo
2012-02-02 21:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andy Wingo @ 2012-02-01 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark H Weaver; +Cc: guile-devel
On Wed 01 Feb 2012 07:20, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> 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/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE?
2012-02-01 6:20 Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE? Mark H Weaver
2012-02-01 10:59 ` Andy Wingo
@ 2012-02-02 21:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2012-02-02 21:49 ` Andy Wingo
2012-02-02 22:10 ` Mark H Weaver
1 sibling, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2012-02-02 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: guile-devel
Hello!
Adding ‘scm_to_pointer’ is nice, but ‘SCM_POINTER_VALUE’ is also meant
to be public (and should be documented.)
I’m curious: why would one want to use the FFI’s C API?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-02-02 22:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-02-01 6:20 Should we add scm_to_pointer, or just use SCM_POINTER_VALUE? Mark H Weaver
2012-02-01 10:59 ` Andy Wingo
2012-02-02 21:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2012-02-02 21:49 ` Andy Wingo
2012-02-02 22:10 ` Mark H Weaver
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).