[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gh_lookup() equivalent
From: |
Neil Jerram |
Subject: |
Re: gh_lookup() equivalent |
Date: |
29 Jan 2002 23:32:02 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
>>>>> "stefan" == stefan <address@hidden> writes:
stefan> [FIXME:
stefan> should this be SCM_UNSPECIFIED? Can a symbol ever legitimately
be
stefan> bound to SCM_UNDEFINED or SCM_UNSPECIFIED? What is the
difference?
stefan> -twp]
stefan> If you can gurantee the return value cannot be bound to a symbol
you can
stefan> use the replacement code you proposed. If not we would need a
further
stefan> argument *and* a return value.
In general, no, you can't guarantee that a lookup won't result in
SCM_UNSPECIFIED, SCM_UNDEFINED, SCM_UNBOUND or whatever.
But you don't need to. scm_sym2var returns either SCM_BOOL_F or a
variable object. If it's a variable object, you'll need to use
SCM_VARIABLE_REF to get the actual value. See the code for (funnily
enough :-) gh_lookup for details.
Neil