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: truth of %nil Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:13:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87iqg5y2o8.fsf@arudy.ossau.uklinux.net> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1251630903 18349 80.91.229.12 (30 Aug 2009 11:15:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:15:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andy Wingo , guile-devel To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Aug 30 13:14:56 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 1MhiN6-0007u2-8o for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:14:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55349 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MhiN5-0006mQ-EX for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MhiMu-0006mJ-E3 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MhiMp-0006lU-4T for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52144 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MhiMo-0006lH-Sp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:2739) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MhiMo-000066-KJ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MhiMn-0004RI-VI for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:14:38 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-152-99-133.range86-152.btcentralplus.com [86.152.99.133]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 260C01F6C62; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:14:00 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from arudy.ossau.uklinux.net (arudy [127.0.0.1]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8F738021; Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:13:59 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <20090707111406.GA1388@fibril.netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue\, 7 Jul 2009 07\:14\:09 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) X-Detected-Operating-System: by mx20.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) 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:9205 Archived-At: Mark H Weaver writes: > This numbering has the nice properties that 0 is #f. Just to be clear: will this mean that (SCM_BOOL_F == 0) ? As things stand I don't think it will, because SCM_MAKIFLAG shifts and adds 0x04. Just checking this because Ludovic said recently that (SCM_BOOL_F == 0) would have nice properties for BDW-GC. > Also, you may have noticed that I've been using the term "lisp" > instead of "elisp". This is because guile may support other lisps in > the future, and they will also need the same %nil handling. (For that > matter, we could even use %nil to implement an "old scheme" language > which treats '() as false.) With this in mind, should SCM_ELISP_NIL > be renamed to SCM_LISP_NIL? Yes, that sounds like a good argument to me - i.e. I can't see any reason why the special-case-ness of Elisp shouldn't apply equally to other Lisps - so please do rename "ELISP" things to "LISP", where this argument supports that. Thanks, Neil