Re: Type-error in C code

[Julien Danjou]

On Tue, Nov 16 2010, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Finally, note that a default *is* an option.  Do you want to force
> union type for all builds, or do you want to make it the default and
> leave the option to the user to use the (possibly faster) bit-flicking
> implementation?

Since I don't buy your arguments[1], I think it should NOT be an option,
but the implementation itself.

OTOH, I only talked about using a struct including the integer, not
necessarily the whole union type used by use-union-lisp-type.

We already use that kind of type in XCB[2] without any problem.

[1]  Which were probably true a long time ago, but you will need to prove
     that it does not compile anywhere and is slow to me in 2010. :)

[2]  http://xcb.freedesktop.org

-- 
Julien Danjou
// ᐰ <address@hidden>   http://julien.danjou.info