Re: Bugs in numbers.c (with patch)

[Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>]

On 22 Mar 2000, Greg J. Badros wrote:

> It'd be nice to have an easy #define to use to select your typedef
> (strictly for bug-searching, not for generating the real executable --
> the void * patch is a good middle ground for that for now).

Jim Blandy once suggested 'GUILE_STRICT_TYPING', which is quite
appropriate.  However, following our recent discussion about guile's API,
I'd go for SCM_STRICT_TYPING.

Also, maybe I was not clear about it:  I think the void* patch is _great_
and very important for guile's long time improvement.  And, for compiled
libraries the void* solution is most effiecient.  I was not meaning to
criticize it, especially the way the patch was performed was great, since
the gained flexibility allows us now to find all these rough edges in
guile.  And, obviously, it was not that patch that introduced these
problems:  These are long existing inconsistencies which remained
unnoticed (except by those many who tried to work on those hot spots like
numbers.c and went mad).  However, who likes to may simply undefine
SCM_VOIDP_TEST and live in peace again.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann