From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:00:26 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3rb154l.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C48F.2020005@cs.ucla.edu> <87fv7rupcc.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C6C0.2000609@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429786871 24787 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 11:01:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ohwoeowho@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 13:01:03 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YlEsQ-00044M-Oo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:01:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39451 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlEsQ-0002dO-8B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:01:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57648) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlEs3-0002d9-Nb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:00:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlErv-0005qq-Jq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:00:39 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:40677) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlErv-0005ph-9V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:00:31 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NN900F00A3Y7300@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:00:24 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NN900F05AKO5O60@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:00:24 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <5538C6C0.2000609@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:185801 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 03:17:36 -0700 > From: Paul Eggert > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Oleh Krehel wrote: > > Should it be 'foo' or 'foo_'? > > The former, surely. There should be no need for the trailing underscore. Wasn't that underscore introduced for the concurrency branch? E.g., see KVAR and BVAR macros. I think the idea was to prevent people from writing code that directly accesses these fields, which is bad for concurrency.