Re: SCM_SMOB_TAG smob abstraction

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj-pc.nada.kth.se>]

Greg Badros <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:

> A *lot* of the guile source code seems unnecessarily obfuscated and
> semantically in-lined.  By that, I mean that if the thought is, e.g., to 
> access the "bang" component, the code has some crazy expression to
> accessing the bang component instead of an abstraction of the notion of
> accessing that component and a separate definition.

Well, as you saw in my previous mail, I think that using SCM_TYP16 is
the clean thing in this case.  (Note that the scm interface is the
interface used to implement Guile.  It is primarily controlled by the
needs of the Guile implementation.  We should be able to provide
user-friendly things in the gh interface.)

But I agree that many things in Guile are obfuscated, and it's good to
point out those things.

I think it would be a good idea to improve the snarf macros for
procedure heads, but I'll leave that to Jim.  I've recently modified
the representation of subrs so that we now can store procedures
documentation associated with them.  The new macros could support
documentation (or we could use your system, which I'm not familiar
with).