From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Richard M. Stallman" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bootstrap problem with union Lisp_Object Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:41:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <55DA5764-DDB6-4858-9CE2-065857CDC863@gnu.org> <3AFF0594-F842-4079-9A3B-D1CF7358A281@raeburn.org> <0D268F0D-B278-4307-86E3-E0FCE7A3B57B@raeburn.org> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134092625 30983 80.91.229.2 (9 Dec 2005 01:43:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 01:43:45 +0000 (UTC) Cc: schwab@suse.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 09 02:43:36 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkXI2-0006Aa-6f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2005 02:43:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkXIL-0006Sp-KD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:43:33 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EkXHP-0005wQ-De for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:35 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EkXHN-0005uk-GJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EkXHM-0005uR-VG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:42:33 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EkXIU-0000L7-1s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:43:42 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1EkXGK-0000Jy-VE; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:41:29 -0500 Original-To: Ken Raeburn In-reply-to: (message from Ken Raeburn on Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:59:37 -0500) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:47275 Archived-At: No, but without such a thing -- or some other approach like replacing some of these macros with functions -- the ENABLE_CHECKING version of these macros will evaluate arguments more than once. As far as I know, most if not all of the actual uses are cases where this doesn't cause much trouble except perhaps for performance. There isn't a pressing need to change them, so we will leave them alone. Please, everyone, stop suggesting changes merely because they might be improvements. That's not a sufficient reason to suggest a change now. We need to focus on the work that NEEDS to be done: fixing bugs, and tuning the new features. Please see etc/FOR-RELEASE. I am always a day behind in answering email. I therefore ask the others on this list to help focus activities, by reminding people of this policy faster than I can. If you see someone make a suggestion which is not about fixing a bug or tuning a new feature, please respond by saying, politely, that now is the wrong time to propose such issues and would people please refrain from further discussion of the inappropriate proposal.