Re: Likely a good frog project for someone with C knowledge

[David Kastrup]

Reinhold Kainhofer <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mi., 17. Aug. 2011 10:19:33 CEST, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I mean, look at the bad code I dug up.    Pretty early in the list there
>> was:
>> -    if (mode != SCM_UNDEFINED && scm_string_p (mode))
>> +    if (scm_is_string (mode))
>
>
> Yes, that's code that should really be fixed.
>
>
>> > If you feel compelled to change large swaths of source code by
>> > substituting x == SCM_EOL with scm_is_eq(x, SCM_EOL), then I can't
>> > stop you, but to me it just looks like a waste of time.
>> 
>> That would be scm_is_null (x).    It is not exactly like the code gets
>> less readable by that substitution.
>
> Here, I agree with David, too.
> If we have someone who wants to work on them and clean up some code, I
> have no objection. It just probably won't fix a problem, but improves
> readability and code style.
>
> The only proble I see with the -D compile switch is the code of
> ly_symbol2scm (which is used several times in almost every file),
> which does a check "if (!cached)" to see if the SCM cache has been
> initialized. How should this be correctly implemented? It is not a
> check for a scheme value, but builds on the guile internals of how a
> SCM looks when initialized.

I already wrote that.

if (!SCM_UNPACK (cached))

We already use SCM_UNPACK to access raw content when creating smobs (and
it is both the only and the canonical way to do this).

-- 
David Kastrup