Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote:
>>
>> This would be for 1.6 too. Perhaps other non-closures should be
>> recognised by scm_m_define too. Would everything passing
>> scm_procedure_p be ok?
>
> I made an executive decision to use scm_procedure_p, but I left 1.6
> alone.
That sounds good to me. Am I right in thinking that the main
practical impact of this is in backtraces?
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
