[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SCM_CALL_N
From: |
Dirk Herrmann |
Subject: |
Re: SCM_CALL_N |
Date: |
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:49:23 +0200 (MEST) |
On 22 Jun 2001, Neil Jerram wrote:
> >>>>> "Keisuke" == Keisuke Nishida <address@hidden> writes:
>
> Keisuke> Hello, The patch attached below implements four macros,
> Keisuke> SCM_CALL_0, SCM_CALL_1, SCM_CALL_2, and SCM_CALL_3, as
> Keisuke> follows: [...]
>
> Keisuke> Is this a good patch? Can I apply it?
>
> I'm inclined against it. The benefit does not seem sufficient to
> outweigh the cost, which is to obscure calls of scm_apply.
>
> Instead, some of the cases that you suggest changing could be tidied
> up a bit by using the appropriate SCM_LISTn macro.
But, I have always had problems to understand the way parameters have to
be passed to scm_apply. Therefore, I think Keisuke does bring up a point
which could actually need improvement.
Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann
- SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/22
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/22
- Re: SCM_CALL_N,
Dirk Herrmann <=
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Dale P. Smith, 2001/06/22
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Rob Browning, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Neil Jerram, 2001/06/24
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Keisuke Nishida, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Marius Vollmer, 2001/06/25
- Re: SCM_CALL_N, Rob Browning, 2001/06/25