From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Bill Schottstaedt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Doc organization (Re: Around again, and docs lead role) Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 04:52:35 -0700 Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <200305091152.EAA26081@cmn14.stanford.edu> References: <3E92E1B4002B0632@pop3.tiscalinet.es> <3EAFE4EC000D9733@pop1.tiscalinet.es> <87d6its93b.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (NeXT Mail 3.3 v148.2.1) Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1052481224 24238 80.91.224.249 (9 May 2003 11:53:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:53:44 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 09 13:53:38 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19E6RW-0006IA-00 for ; Fri, 09 May 2003 13:53:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E6Re-0008NR-07 for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:53:46 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E6RC-0008Gx-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E6Qz-00081Y-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:53:10 -0400 Original-Received: from cm-mail.stanford.edu ([171.64.197.135]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 19E6Qb-0007R1-00 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 09 May 2003 07:52:41 -0400 Original-Received: from cmn14.stanford.edu (cmn14.stanford.edu [171.64.197.163]) by cm-mail.stanford.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h49BqcE11689 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 04:52:38 -0700 Original-Received: (from bil@localhost) by cmn14.stanford.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA26081 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 9 May 2003 04:52:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87d6its93b.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> X-Nextstep-Mailer: Mail 3.3 [m68k] (Enhance 2.2p2) Original-Received: by NeXT.Mailer (1.148.2.1) Original-To: guile-user@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:1926 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user:1926 > (To give a concrete > example from another thread, I see no need for people to write C code > that uses scm_internal_catch.) I use scm_internal_stack_catch a lot (and can't see any need for Guile to remove it...) -- I pass closures/functions/user scheme code around in C, as well as providing a "listener" where anything might happen -- this would be clumsy to implement with some callback to scheme (and no easier to write in scheme than in C -- the tricky part is good error handling which Guile flubs miserably anyway). Why try to force people to write scheme? It seems to me that you're defeating the whole purpose of Guile just to simplify its documentation. Or to put it another way, if you don't have the C-level catch mechanism, you better not use scm_apply or anything related to it. That leaves scm_num2int? _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user