Potential g-wrap bug?
Derek Atkins
warlord@MIT.EDU
10 Jun 2002 15:54:36 -0400
Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
> Yeah. I don't think I originally expected people to use (). I hadn't
> really thought about passing in #f, but I could see it either of the
> following ways:
>
> (1) Allowing #f is less appropriate (and certainly less schemey)
> than requiring (), so we shouldn't.
>
> (2) People already use #f all over the place for NULL on the scheme
> side, so it's natural to expect #f to work here for what
> (underneath) is really a GList*.
>
> I lean toward (1), though it should probably be fixed to not segfault.
I don't particularly care if '#f' is considered an error or not (part
of me would like to consider "#f" and "'()" equivalent here, but
obviously they are not). In either case it should at least not
segfault when passed #f. ;)
> Right now it traverses the input list building the output list, but
> destroys the accumulated output list if anything goes wrong. I think
> the "goes wrong" checking just needs a little fixing.
Any chance that, while you're at it fixing the GList bug you could
also supply a g-wraped "gslist-of" as well? I've got a lot of code
that uses GSList and I'd rather not convert it all the GList when it
really is a singly-linked list. I also don't want to be passing
GLists into functions expecting GSLists.
Thanks!
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
warlord@MIT.EDU PGP key available