This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: struct interface
- To: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>
- Subject: Re: struct interface
- From: Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>
- Date: 06 Apr 2000 18:19:01 +0200
- Cc: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>, clark dot mcgrew at sunysb dot edu, Guile Mailing List <guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- Organization: who? me?
- References: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
Dirk Herrmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 6 Apr 2000, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > I don't want to introduce complexity in the user interface.
> Except if we add a debug mode in which at runtime the alignments are
> checked with every call to the SCM_MEMORY_WORD macro.
ah, now I understand what "user interface" referred to. sorry,
> However, my temporary concern is not how to care for extensions to guile
> which are in a maybe-not-too-near future. The question is, whether the
> suggested macros make sense and whether we should try to direct the
> majority of guile's current memory accesses through such a set of
> macros. Is this, for example, something helpful for the introduction of
> the new garbage collection mechanisms?
everything that helps ensure that writes to SCM locations don't bypass
the write barrier is helpful.
as for the value of channelling both cell access and object data area
access through the same macros - I don't know.
Those who do not learn from history, loop.