Re: The dynamic stack

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Tue 06 Mar 2012 18:20, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> I have pushed a patch to master that changes the implementation of the
>>> dynamic stack
>>
>> The “dynwind stack” actually (I misread it the first time.)
>
> Yes, it did have this name before.  (More often, "the wind list".)  But
> since "dynwind" is overloaded so much (dynamic-wind operator, <dynwind>,
> scm_dynwind_*), and the dynamic stack can have other things on it like
> prompts, I thought it best to give it a new name.

Indeed, very good point.

That said, when I first saw the topic, I was expecting something about
the VM stack, which could now be grown dynamically upon stack overflow.
:-)

Now, what would be a better name?  As you say, in an ideal world,
there’d be only one stack so...

>> Could you please add comments in dynstack.c (above each function), and
>> make sure to follow GCS-style (no hanging brace, for example)?
>
> What do you mean by "no hanging brace"?

Anything reported by:

  grep -nH -e '[[:graph:]]\+[[:blank:]]*{$' *.[ch]

such as:

  typedef enum {
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_NONE = 0,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_FRAME,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_UNWINDER,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_REWINDER,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_WITH_FLUIDS,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_PROMPT,
    SCM_DYNSTACK_TYPE_DYNWIND,
  } scm_t_dynstack_item_type;

Also, “Don't declare both a structure tag and variables or typedefs in
the same declaration” (info "(standards) Syntactic Conventions").

> What sorts of comments would you like to see?  I have been working with
> this code a lot, so perhaps some things which are obvious to me from
> names, types, assertions, etc that might not actually be obvious.  I
> don't see what I can write that isn't wholly redundant.  Perhaps you
> will let me know :-)

Comments above functions would be nice.  For instance, I can’t tell what
this does:

  scm_t_dynstack *
  scm_dynstack_capture (scm_t_dynstack *dynstack, scm_t_bits *item)

A two-line comment above mentioning DYNSTACK and ITEM would be great
(info "(standards) Comments").  (And we could use the neat
M-x semantic-ia-show-doc, which gives a Geiser feel to this dull C
world.  ;-))

And I think it wouldn’t be redundant for many/most of the functions in
that file.

Thanks,
Ludo’.