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: scm_to_pointer vs scm->pointer Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:35:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87k3yja6ae.fsf@pobox.com> References: <871uktsv1n.fsf@pobox.com> <871uksms9d.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1341416140 1165 80.91.229.3 (4 Jul 2012 15:35:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Mark H. Weaver" , guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 04 17:35:36 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SmRc4-0008Bp-LU for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:35:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57077 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmRc3-0000un-L6 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:35:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34795) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmRbw-0000eh-0N for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:35:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmRbn-00013B-C6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:35:23 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:60739 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmRbn-00012P-3K; Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:35:15 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA12BDCF; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:35:10 -0400 (EDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=NrBxABjWbZXr FIA17UJ5NDC4MGs=; b=AFBUsQTg+y9ItrLaqE/imzahdRcpgrWSUBTfAzQlNS0N /ygH1GXBT24QnOVbDYP0MMpzQIARpJO6JH1wSTuSyxCMIrIp/Jio6Y2uEwb3HdLn soCJIPFExzR1YMWmTJ1WN22eIZa/X13Fq/1ds/OJNbqayz72rWi+ya/Yfc2Z9yM= 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:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=M/gwQe BkzIXekvs+Ut1CFY0UyCOk4GikZINnmlwKH2AY0F39Eb0UY62YsRzseqJlvN1iws z9pcAztJLxx8acWCz4rgp3jTAxZ8ETw+85At933yag5choqZejAaCPmRcaT3NMAn SXrfV074CBdvi3tNkpOprvgSOKgekrInfDddA= Original-Received: from b-pb-sasl-sd. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6433BBDCC; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:35:09 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [80.102.218.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A92E7BDCA; Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:35:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <871uksms9d.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:47:26 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D6221ECA-C5ED-11E1-94E6-FA6787E41631-02397024!b-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:14706 Archived-At: On Tue 03 Jul 2012 23:47, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> This should be fixed. Otherwise it's impossible to document in any >> sane fashion. >> >> Suggestion: change scm_to_pointer to SCM_POINTER_VALUE. WDYT? > > I=E2=80=99m happy with this change. Mark? > > (Back then, I was skeptical about the usefulness of the C pointer API. > I have since used =E2=80=98SCM_POINTER_VALUE=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98scm_fr= om_pointer=E2=80=99 in > Guile-GCC, which uses a mixed dynamic/static FFI, and for good reasons.) On second thought, let's leave it in. It is terribly confusing, but alternatives are worse. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/