[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bignum branch

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: bignum branch
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 10:52:35 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
I see no reason yet to get rid of XFASTINT.  Certainly not because we
need to come up with one more macro name.

The name is just the straw that broke the camel's back. We haven't needed XFASTINT for years, the distinction between XINT and XFASTINT is more hassle than it's worth, and maintaining the distinction with XFASTFIXNUM and XFASTINTEGER and XFASTBIGNUM would compound the hassle.

The main reason to keep XFASTINT was inertia. As long as we're redoing XFASTINT calls anyway we might as well change them to XINTEGER or XFIXNUM (whichever is applicable), and clean out the XFAST... cruft.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]