Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX

[Kim F. Storm]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> On 11 Jul 2002 15:27:33 +0200, address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) wrote:
> 
> > For consistency, I suggest to change all occurrences of `specpdl_ptr -
> > specpdl' to SPECPDL_INDEX. 
> 
> OK, I'll take care of it.
> 
> > I'd suggest changing the name of those variables to `specpdl_index' or
> > just `spix' (which isn't currently used anywhere) for short.
> 
> "spix" seems a bit cryptic to me.

Less cryptic that specpdl_index?  :-)

Actually, `specpdl_index' isn't really good either, as it is not the
current index, but the saved index.

Maybe one of these is better:
        old_specpdl
        saved_specpdl
        specpdl_save 
        specpdl_base
        base_specpdl
        specpdl_top


-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk