Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 18:11 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
felix
(04 Jan 2004 19:25 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 20:08 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:13 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(04 Jan 2004 22:59 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 00:50 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:19 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 11:42 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:26 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 17:49 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 18:24 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 22:00 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:42 UTC)
|
I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 00:55 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)" Richard Kelsey (05 Jan 2004 12:07 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Shiro Kawai
(05 Jan 2004 12:45 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 16:35 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
bear
(05 Jan 2004 17:54 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:39 UTC)
|
Re: I don't believe in "(may GC)"
Michael Sperber
(06 Jan 2004 07:39 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:05 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 01:12 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(05 Jan 2004 12:17 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 17:40 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 19:03 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 01:37 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 02:15 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 02:31 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Richard Kelsey
(06 Jan 2004 03:10 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
tb@xxxxxx
(06 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
|
Re: no constants please
Tom Lord
(06 Jan 2004 04:06 UTC)
|
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 17:21:41 -0800 (PST) From: Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> The draft FFI says: double SCHEME_EXTRACT_DOUBLE(scheme_value) char * SCHEME_EXTRACT_STRING(scheme_value) Neither says "(may GC)". If I'm using some exotic number representation (constructive reals, perhaps), then EXTRACT_DOUBLE may very well involve some pretty hairy, hence possibly GC-causing, computation. This doesn't worry me too much; there aren't a lot of such implementations around. If I'm using some exotic string representations (I'm working on a functional-splay-tree string type for Pika) -- same deal: extract-string may take some (possibly GC-causing) work. This does worry me (it's listed in the 'issues' section of the SRFI). I think we went overboard here. Something like SCHEME_EXTRACT_STRING_CONTENTS(scheme_value, index, count, buffer) which copies 'count' characters starting from 'index' into 'buffer' would be better. Presumably this can be done without GCing. Even something innocent like: int SCHEME_CHAR_P(scheme_value) can cause GC if my implementation let's me attach to a hook in its implementation. Again, I don't think this will be very common. Is there an existing implementation for which this (or anything similar) is an issue? -Richard Kelsey