Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode)

[Marius Vollmer]

Bruce Korb <address@hidden> writes:

> Marius Vollmer wrote:
>
>> Yes, well.  I haven't made my mind up yet, but I tend to just use
>> scm_is_true and scm_is_false.  It's not a big problem to be a little
>> unsymmetric, I'd say.
>
> I'd disagree.  Any lack of symmetry requires increased knowledge
> and more care in usage.  So, if ``scm_is_<type>'' is implemented
> for nearly all types, then it needs to be implemented for them all.
> "All types except for bool" is too hard to remember.

Yeah, point well taken.

Sooo, right now I'm wembleying towards having

 scm_is_true   --- return 0 for #f, 1 for everything else
 scm_is_false  --- return 1 for #f, 0 for everything else

 scm_is_bool   --- return 1 for #t and #f, 0 for everything else
 scm_to_bool   --- return 0 for #f, 1 for everything else
 scm_from_bool --- return #f for 0, #t for everything else

Is there an advantage of having instead

 scm_to_bool   --- return 0 for #f, 1 for #t, else signal error

What about

 scm_from_bool --- return #f for 0, #t for 1, else signal error

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405