[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
Mon, 14 May 2001 16:20:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
: "Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:
: > I assume this is a vote against the SCM_INTERNAL scheme too then?
:
: Err, no. That would be technical measure that is easy to
: circumvent. ;)
I'll give you that.
: That would probably work for any specific version of Guile, but it
: does have catastrophic failure modes when the two copies of the struct
: definition drift out of sync.
Structures shouldn't be part of a library interface, but then again;
we're talking about internals (external internals).
Lars J
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jürgen A. Erhard, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/12
- more on continuations, Bill Schottstaedt, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/13
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Lars J. Aas <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/15
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/15
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/16
RE: To gh_ or not to gh_?, John Fitzgerald, 2001/05/11
RE: To gh_ or not to gh_?, John Fitzgerald, 2001/05/13