Re: scm_bits_t / scm_ubits_t

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 9 Jun 2001, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> Ok, do we have a conclusion?  I'd say we need to move away from
> scm_*_t towards scm_t_*, which shouldn't be complicated, and make
> scm_t_bits an unsigned type.  For list lengths etc, we continue to use
> size_t for now.
> 
> As a bonus, we might check for uintptr_t and use that for scm_t_ubits
> if it is found.  If not, we use unsigned long.
> 
> Everybody agrees?

I agree.

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann