[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:09:14 +0200 |
On 11 Jul 2002 16:48:02 +0200, address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) wrote:
> Less cryptic that specpdl_index? :-)
Well, er... yeah, I suppose... more or less. :-)
> Actually, `specpdl_index' isn't really good either, as it is not the
> current index, but the saved index.
Hm. I've blindly made the change, but now I have second thoughts.
In alloc.c, for example, there's that code:
for (bind = specpdl; bind != specpdl_ptr; bind++)
{
mark_object (&bind->symbol);
mark_object (&bind->old_value);
}
Both specpdl and specpdl_ptr are pointers to the same structure, aren't
they? So specpdl_ptr - specpdl is really a count and not an index.
> Maybe one of these is better:
> old_specpdl
> saved_specpdl
> specpdl_save
> specpdl_base
> base_specpdl
> specpdl_top
Assuming it is really an index and not a count, any one of those is
better, yes.
/L/e/k/t/u
- BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/09
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/07/10
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/11
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Stefan Monnier, 2002/07/11
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/07/11
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Stefan Monnier, 2002/07/11
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/07/12
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Kim F. Storm, 2002/07/12
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Richard Stallman, 2002/07/12
- Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX, Juanma Barranquero, 2002/07/12