[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:12:14 +0300 |
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:07 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> Cc: 11935@debbugs.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org
>
> There are important advantages to not inlining: you can put
> breakpoints on them, for example.
Why would we need to put a breakpoint on a function that replaces the
XINT macro? We've lived with a macro (where you cannot put a
breakpoint) for many years without any problems (AFAIK). We have
debugger commands to display values of Lisp integers. So I don't
think debuggability will be a problem in this particular case
(although it might be in others).
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/13
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Richard Stallman, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Eli Zaretskii, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/16
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/23
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Stefan Monnier, 2012/07/24
- bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions, Paul Eggert, 2012/07/25