no constants please Tom Lord (23 Dec 2003 23:06 UTC)
Re: no constants please tb@xxxxxx (23 Dec 2003 23:10 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (26 Dec 2003 18:31 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (26 Dec 2003 19:24 UTC)
Re: no constants please Michael Sperber (27 Dec 2003 16:17 UTC)
Re: no constants please Tom Lord (27 Dec 2003 18:55 UTC)

Re: no constants please Michael Sperber 27 Dec 2003 16:17 UTC

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

>> From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>

Tom> SCHEME_FALSE, SCHEME_TRUE, SCHEME_NULL, and
Tom> SCHEME_UNSPECIFIC should be functions, not constants:

>> Why?

Tom> [...] because, you never know, those constants might be
Tom> heap allocated.

>> That, AFAICS, doesn't mandate the above.

Tom> Perhaps it would be clearer if I said that those constants may be
Tom> _newly_ heap allocated.

No.

Tom> It isn't GC-safe to return values which may be unprotected from GC.

Then GC-protect them.

Tom> Anyway, why is it important to write them that way?  You can't use
Tom> them with == or !=.

Why not?

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla