Re: array handles and non-local exits

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Neil,

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

>>> Array_handle_release is a bad idea.
>>
>> Fair enough.
>
> FWIW, I agree (I think with both of you) that `we might need it in
> future' is not a good argument, but that API compatibility is.

OK.  So we can proceed with the removal, leaving a no-op macro when
SCM_ENABLE_DEPRECATED == 1.  Andy, can you take care of this?  :-)

> I'm pretty sure it was about allowing C code to efficiently access and
> modify uniform vector contents, but at the same time supporting
> operations which might require the underlying storage to be
> reallocated.
>
> The latter operations could include enlarging an existing vector, or
> copy-on-write.  But AFAICT we never implemented either of those ideas,
> and the existing code never changes the underlying storage of a
> vector.

Thanks for the information.

Ludo'.