Re: GC interface (was Re: Scheme hooks <-> C hooks)

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> What do you mean with "C hook procedure"?

"C hook function".  sorry.

> By "equal citizen", are you suggesting that it should be
> possible to add both Scheme hook functions and C hook functions to the
> same kind of hook?

yes.  well, there are all kinds of pesky details, like how to interpet 
return values and arguments &c, but generally: yes.

> (BTW, if "yes", what should happen with the C hook functions in a hook
>  when we call `reset-hook!' from the Scheme level?  This is not some
>  kind of trap... :)

consider me fallen into the trap then ;).  why should `reset-hook!' do
anything special in the presence of C hook functions?

> > 1) I think that the only time/place where Scheme procedures are
> >    unwelcome is garbage collection.  it looks like you envision other
> >    situations where Scheme procedures are unwelcome.  what kind of
> >    situations?
> 
> I don't envision any other situations.  But I do see that there could
> be situations where C hooks can be useful.  "Could be" is not strong
> enough to motivate adding new things, but it is strong enough to
> motivate not unnecessarily restricting the use of C hooks.

I guess that if I'm in your trap above, then you are obviously right
(as your reasoning follows from the assumption that C and Scheme
callable entities are not equal when it comes to hanging them on
hooks).

-- 
HELP ME! HELP ME! MY PAPER FEED IS JAMMED! DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO
HAVE YOUR PAPER FEED JAMMED?