Re: scm_bits_t

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:

> > To me, scm_bits_t seems like a better name than scm_t.  Note that the
> > first part of the name is just a prefix, so `scm_t' conceptually is
> > just "t".
> 
> C programmers expect foo_t to denote a foo type, like time_t or
> size_t.  And, since scm_bits_t actually _is_ the basic scheme type, I
> think the name scm_t fits quite well.

I understand what you mean, but I think scm_t (note how this leads to
a double meaning of scm_ in Guile) would be suitable for the basic
scheme type which is now called SCM, but not for the type we're now
talking about.  It seems silly to say "to access the bitstructure of
an SCM value, use lower-case with a _t appended".

(Or?  Maybe this is the way to go: "SCM" for the basic scheme type and
 "scm" when accessing it as a number.  It is at least symmetric.)

> I think that a name like scm_lisp_true or something would fit better
> for 't, but I'm no lisp expert.  Futher: is this definition used at
> all?

This is experimental code which originally wasn't intended to be
included into Guile.  It was put there to make it easier for
interested people to lab with ELisp support.  I'll rename it to
scm_lisp_t.

> The point is, that we can _now_ select a name that will be
> convenient to use in C code for the guile community as well as
> newcomers to guile.

Yes.