Why are both PRIMITIVE and SCM defined?

From: Jason Riedy <ejr_at_cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 1995 00:21:04 EST

I'm just wondering why both PRIMITIVE and SCM are defined;
syntactically they're the same thing, and they're used interchangably
in a few places...

Are they just sugar, or should I worry about an intended semantic
difference? I like having both, as PRIMITIVE stands out nicely in
extension code, but there are instances of SCM in the "wrong" places.
For instance, the type of apply_fct in STk_extended_scheme_type is SCM
when, IMHO, it should be PRIMITIVE.

Jason, who's trying to convince all the Tcl/Tk weenies here to try STk...
Received on Mon Nov 06 1995 - 06:22:49 CET