Re: Representation of VM programs---applicable smobs?

[Keisuke Nishida <kxn30 at po dot cwru dot edu>]

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

> A third possibility is to add applicable smobs to Guile---quite an
> interesting idea actually.  It seems that this has a niche of its own,
> just like smobs have their niche (simple, extensible, low-level
> representation).
> 
> Actually, several of the current uses of compiled closures would fit
> much better as applicable smobs (lower overhead).  This holds, for
> example, for standard-eval-closures.
> 
> What are people's opinion about adding applicable smobs to Guile?
> (This implies adding a new entry for scm_tc7_smob in the application
>  switches in SCM_CEVAL and SCM_DAPPLY.)

I think this is a very good idea.  How will the API look like?
I would like the following:

  static long scm_program_tag;

  SCM
  scm_apply_program (SCM program, SCM args)
  {
    return scm_vm_apply (some_vm, program, args);
  }

  static void
  scm_init_program ()
  {
    scm_program_tag = scm_make_smob_type ("program", 0);
    scm_set_smob_apply (scm_program_tag, scm_apply_program);
  }

Implementing this will be fairly easy.  Could you do this soon?
Or could I help?