[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pure simple-closures
From: |
Joe Neeman |
Subject: |
Re: pure simple-closures |
Date: |
Sun, 22 Oct 2006 09:44:59 +0200 |
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 17:29 +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Joe Neeman schreef:
> > On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 12:15 +0200, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> >> Joe Neeman schreef:
> >>
> >>> Mostly because at the time that I wrote it, I couldn't figure out how to
> >>> handle arbitrary length argument lists in scheme (the only way I
> >>> currently know is to build the list of arguments, cons in the function
> >> I think you're looking for the apply function,
> >>
> >> (apply func arg-list)
> >
> > Ah yes, that's much better. So did you want me to put call_pure_function
> > in scheme?
>
> yes, I think so. The most important thing is that subsystems should not
> cross the C++/Scheme divide all too often. Since most of the func->pure
> -func code is in Scheme, I think it's best we keep improvements there.
How's this one? I also changed from using SCM_UNDEFINED to
SCM_UNSPECIFIED so I could restore grob-closure.cc and added
pure-outside-slur-callback.
tmp.patch
Description: Text Data
- pure simple-closures, Joe Neeman, 2006/10/20
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/20
- Re: pure simple-closures, Joe Neeman, 2006/10/21
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/21
- Re: pure simple-closures, Joe Neeman, 2006/10/21
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/21
- Re: pure simple-closures,
Joe Neeman <=
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/22
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/22
- Re: pure simple-closures, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2006/10/28