[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1
From: |
Keisuke Nishida |
Subject: |
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1 |
Date: |
Mon, 05 Feb 2001 20:31:49 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/21.0.96 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
At 06 Feb 2001 02:42:57 +0200,
Michael Livshin wrote:
>
> > SCM_NEWCELL (obj);
> > scm_restore_object (&SCM_CDR (obj), dstate);
> > scm_restore_object (&SCM_CAR (obj), dstate);
> >
> > but actually, it works... Isn't this dangerous?
>
> why would it be dangerous?
I thought SCM_SETCAR/CDR are doing something special, but looking
at their definitions again, I realized they aren't. Okay, I'll
remove the redundant functions.
> > Yes, I'll create a table that maps stored typecodes to real tc
> > values.
>
> by name?
Yes.
Name Stored tag Real tc
"foo" 127 + 0 * 256 (dynamically determined by name)
"bar" 127 + 1 * 256 (dynamically determined by name)
...
Do we need some verification mechanism? How?
Kei
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, (continued)
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/03
- Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/05
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1,
Keisuke Nishida <=
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/06
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/07
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/02/08
- Re: Guile Binary Format 0.1, Michael Livshin, 2001/02/19
Re: Guile Binary Format 0.0, Miroslav Silovic, 2001/02/04