From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Juanma Barranquero <lektu@terra.es>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:09:14 +0200
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <20020711162739.5C2B.LEKTU@terra.es>
References: <20020711150740.5C22.LEKTU@terra.es> <5xsn2qpbh9.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026400191 23928 127.0.0.1 (11 Jul 2002 15:09:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:09:51 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm), rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 17SfZn-0006Dp-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:09:51 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17SfjF-0004Yf-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:19:37 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17Sfa9-000380-00; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:10:13 -0400
Original-Received: from [62.22.27.141] (helo=mail.peoplecall.com)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17SfZM-00034K-00; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:09:24 -0400
Original-Received: from [62.22.27.143] (jbarranquero.ofi.peoplecall.com [62.22.27.143])
	by mail.peoplecall.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6BF9EM27648;
	Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:09:14 +0200
Original-To: no-spam@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
In-Reply-To: <5xsn2qpbh9.fsf@kfs2.cua.dk>
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.05
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5658
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5658

On 11 Jul 2002 16:48:02 +0200, no-spam@cua.dk (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