[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 22:00:16 +0300 |
> From: Alex Gramiak <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2019 12:43:10 -0600
>
> > I think we should soon push these to a scratch branch, so that people
> > could try that and provide feedback. It's hard to work with such
> > large changes otherwise.
>
> Sure. What's the policy is for rebasing on scratch branches?
Not sure I understand what you mean by "policy". Rebasing or not in
general is up to you, but maybe you are asking about something more
specific.
> I pushed the branch as scratch/x_emacs.
That's okay, thanks.
> > Some frame hooks are called after first making sure they are non-NULL,
> > others skip the test. Is there a reason for this inconsistency?
>
> The ones with no checks are in HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM and are assumed to
> exist, while the ones with checks are outside of HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM.
> Though it appears that I also checked a few that are in
> HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM. Would you prefer all of them to be checked, or just
> the ones outside of HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM?
If every window-system is required to provide these hooks, then I
think it will be enough to test only those which also have
implementations on TTY frames.
> >> store_frame_param (f, prop, val);
> >>
> >> - param_index = Fget (prop, Qx_frame_parameter);
> >> + param_index = Fget (prop, Qframe_parameter_pos);
> >
> > The x-frame-parameter property is visible from Lisp, no? You are here
> > replacing it with a different symbol, which is a backward-incompatible
> > change.
>
> While it is visible from Lisp, I don't see why anyone would change it
> considering that AFAIU it's used as an internal value in frame.c.
> frame.c sets it and uses the value of the property to call the
> appropriate element in frame_parm_table, which Lisp-code should not rely
> on.
>
> Then again, apparently cedet/semantic/util-modes.el accesses this
> property, but that could be changed.
Anything that gets put into frame-parameters can have some Lisp out
there using it. So I think we have 2 alternatives:
1) leave those symbols alone
2) declare them obsolete, but meanwhile put both the new and the old
symbols into frame-parameters
The above assumes that if a Lisp program does something with one of
these parameters, that will have no effect, i.e. that these parameters
are one-way communications from the Emacs internals to Lisp, as far as
Lisp programs are concerned. If the communications are two-way, then
I don't see how we can change these names; do you have any ideas?
> >> /* Store F's background color into *BGCOLOR. */
> >> static void
> >> -x_query_frame_background_color (struct frame *f, XColor *bgcolor)
> >> +gui_query_frame_background_color (struct frame *f, XColor *bgcolor)
> >> {
> >> -#ifndef HAVE_NS
> >> - bgcolor->pixel = FRAME_BACKGROUND_PIXEL (f);
> >> - x_query_color (f, bgcolor);
> >> +#ifdef HAVE_NS
> >> + ns_query_color (FRAME_BACKGROUND_COLOR (f), bgcolor, true);
> >> #else
> >> - ns_query_color (FRAME_BACKGROUND_COLOR (f), bgcolor, 1);
> >> + bgcolor->pixel = FRAME_BACKGROUND_PIXEL (f);
> >> +# ifdef HAVE_NTGUI
> >> + w32_query_colors (f, bgcolor, 1);
> >> +# else
> >> + x_query_colors (f, bgcolor, 1);
> >> +# endif /* HAVE_NTGUI */
> >> #endif
> >
> > Why didn't you convert this to a terminal hook?
>
> In some cases I decided to leave some terminal hooks for a later patch
> to implement, just to make it easier to get this one accepted. I can add
> a hook for this if you'd like.
It's okay to do that in a followup, but please do that soon. I don't
want to risk leaving an unfinished job in the sources.
> > Any reason why some x_* functions in image.c were renamed image_*,
> > while others gui_* ?
>
> My intention is for the HAVE_WINDOW_SYSTEM-only procedures to be gui_*
> and the others to be image_*. I decided on this later on, so I may have
> a few gui_* procedures that should be image_*.
I think using image_* for all the functions in image.c would be
better.
> >> - (f, Qx_set_fullscreen, 0, 0, list2 (old_value, fullscreen));
> >> + (f, Qgui_set_fullscreen, 0, 0, list2 (old_value, fullscreen));
> >
> > This is also visible from Lisp, right? So renaming the symbol would
> > be an incompatible change.
>
> I believe frame_size_history_add only uses the symbols as a
> visual/debugging aid, so I don't believe this is, meaningfully, an
> incompatible change.
Are they in frame-parameters? If so, they are visible.
> >> diff --git a/src/menu.h b/src/menu.h
> >> index 0321c27454..4412948224 100644
> >> --- a/src/menu.h
> >> +++ b/src/menu.h
> >> @@ -47,14 +47,17 @@ extern widget_value *digest_single_submenu (int, int,
> >> bool);
> >> #if defined (HAVE_X_WINDOWS) || defined (MSDOS)
> >> extern Lisp_Object x_menu_show (struct frame *, int, int, int,
> >> Lisp_Object, const char **);
> >> +extern void x_activate_menubar (struct frame *);
> >> #endif
> >> #ifdef HAVE_NTGUI
> >> extern Lisp_Object w32_menu_show (struct frame *, int, int, int,
> >> Lisp_Object, const char **);
> >> +extern void w32_activate_menubar (struct frame *);
> >> #endif
> >> #ifdef HAVE_NS
> >> extern Lisp_Object ns_menu_show (struct frame *, int, int, int,
> >> Lisp_Object, const char **);
> >> +extern void ns_activate_menubar (struct frame *);
> >
> > Since you introduced activate_menubar_hook, why do we need to declare
> > prototypes for its implementation on menu.h, which is a
> > system-independent header?
>
> The implementations are defined in the *menu.c files, but are added as
> terminal hooks in the *term.c files.
I'm not sure I understand the answer. I didn't ask about the
implementations, I asked about the prototypes. Since these are hooks,
their names are not visible outside the corresponding *term.c file,
right? Then why do we need the prototypes of w32_activate_menubar,
ns_activate_menubar, etc. in menu.h?
> >> +/* Wrapper for defined_color_hook to support the extra argument in
> >> + ns_defined_color. */
> >
> > If the extra parameter is the only problem, we could add it to all the
> > terminal types, and just ignore it where it is not needed. Then we
> > won't need a wrapper.
>
> I wanted to avoid that (see my earlier thread about ns_defined_color),
> but if you prefer it I'll change it.
Yes, I think avoiding it makes the code less clean than having an
unused argument.
Thanks.
- [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers (was: Renaming non-X x_* procedures in xdisp.c (and elsewhere)), Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/13
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers (was: Renaming non-X x_* procedures in xdisp.c (and elsewhere)), Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/13
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/13
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/13
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/14
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/15
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/15
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/15
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Alex Gramiak, 2019/04/16
- Re: [PATCH] Renaming non-X x_* identifiers, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/04/16