[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bignum branch
From: |
Andy Moreton |
Subject: |
Re: bignum branch |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 12:36:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (windows-nt) |
On Sat 04 Aug 2018, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Andy Moreton <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2018 20:16:05 +0100
>>
>> Yes. Also perhaps change XBIGNUM to:
>>
>> INLINE struct Lisp_Bignum *
>> XBIGNUM (Lisp_Object a)
>> {
>> eassert (BIGNUMP (a));
>> return XUNTAG (a, Lisp_Misc, struct Lisp_Bignum)->value;
>> }
>>
>> That allows "XBIGNUM(value)->value" to be replaced with "XBIGNUM(value)"
>> in all callers.
>
> That would go against the convention with all the other Xfoo macros.
True, the only thing with similar behaviour being xmint_pointer. While
inconsistent with the other Xfoo macros, it does reduce visual clutter
in the callers.
> However, I see your point, and so perhaps an additional macro,
> XINTEGER, could call either XINT or XBIGNUM()->value, depending on the
> argument type?
I'm not sure that would help, as callers still need to know if the
result is a bignum or fixnum to handle it correctly.
AndyM
Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/03
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/04
- Re: bignum branch,
Andy Moreton <=
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/05
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/06
- Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/06
- Re: bignum branch, Paul Eggert, 2018/08/06
- Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/06
- Re: bignum branch, Tom Tromey, 2018/08/07
- Re: bignum branch, Andy Moreton, 2018/08/07
- Re: bignum branch, Paul Eggert, 2018/08/07
- Re: bignum branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2018/08/07
- Re: bignum branch, Paul Eggert, 2018/08/07