Hello,

That does sound very useful. The only thing that makes me worried is


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:

> On Thu 17 Jan 2013 11:53, Marco Maggi <marco.maggi-ipsu@poste.it> writes:
> >   The  other  Scheme   implementations  using   a  non-compacting
> >   garbage collector
>

Do we want to guarantee that our garbage collector will always be
non-compacting, or force major interface changes if it is? (I realize we've
already taken out smob mark procedures, but this is in some ways even
harder to add back.)

I'm not sure this is a big deal, but maybe we should consider what would
happen in the future if we did want to change. Using bytevector->pointer is
an acceptable cost to pay for flexibility, IMHO.

Noah