FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

The FRAME_PTR macro seems not too successful: there are ~1300 uses of
"struct frame *" on 39 files, vs. ~270 uses of FRAME_PTR on 30 files.

Should this be unified, eventually?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Miles Bader]

2005/7/29, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>:
> The FRAME_PTR macro seems not too successful: there are ~1300 uses of
> "struct frame *" on 39 files, vs. ~270 uses of FRAME_PTR on 30 files.
> 
> Should this be unified, eventually?

It seems completely pointless to have an obfuscating macro (ok it's
actually a typedef) like FRAME_PTR.  It's very old, though so maybe
there was some reason a long time ago...

I'd say, get rid of it.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/28/05, Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems completely pointless to have an obfuscating macro (ok it's
> actually a typedef) like FRAME_PTR.

And other structs (like window, buffer, etc.) are used directly.

> I'd say, get rid of it.

Fine by me.

Any objections, anyone?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

And, what about the million times that w->frame is used, instead of
WINDOW_FRAME (w)?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b050728162968f332b3@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/28/05, Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  It seems completely pointless to have an obfuscating macro (ok it's
>>  actually a typedef) like FRAME_PTR.

> And other structs (like window, buffer, etc.) are used directly.

>>  I'd say, get rid of it.

> Fine by me.

> Any objections, anyone?

Such a cosmetic change will cause lots of conflicts in
emacs-unicode branch.  Could you please postpone it until
emacs-unicode is merged?

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Miles Bader]

2005/7/29, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>:
> Such a cosmetic change will cause lots of conflicts in
> emacs-unicode branch.  Could you please postpone it until
> emacs-unicode is merged?

That's probably the best thing.

[Though, probably I'm the one who ends up resolving all the resulting
conflicts!]

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/29/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:

> Such a cosmetic change will cause lots of conflicts in
> emacs-unicode branch.  Could you please postpone it until
> emacs-unicode is merged?

Sure.

And BTW, when will it be merged? Soon after the 22.1 release?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Miles Bader]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
> And BTW, when will it be merged? Soon after the 22.1 release?

I hope so.  The unicode branch is kept in a merged state already, with
about 1 week latency, so it shouldn't take more than about 5 minutes to
reverse the process and commit everything to the trunk (if possible I'd
like to be the one that does it).

-Miles
-- 
Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature.

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/29/05, Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> I hope so.  The unicode branch is kept in a merged state already, with
> about 1 week latency

Does it build on Windows?

> so it shouldn't take more than about 5 minutes to
> reverse the process and commit everything to the trunk (if possible I'd
> like to be the one that does it).

Well, I don't think anyone's gonna jump and take that from under your feet... :)


-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Miles Bader]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
>> I hope so.  The unicode branch is kept in a merged state already, with
>> about 1 week latency
>
> Does it build on Windows?

I don't know.  It doesn't matter.  If there are bugs, they should be
fixed, but delaying the merge won't help anything.

-Miles
-- 
Americans are broad-minded people.  They'll accept the fact that a person can
be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman, but if a
man doesn't drive, there is something wrong with him.  -- Art Buchwald

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/29/05, Miles Bader <miles@lsi.nec.co.jp> wrote:

> I don't know.  It doesn't matter.  If there are bugs, they should be
> fixed, but delaying the merge won't help anything.

I wasn't suggesting delaying the merge in case it didn't build on
Windows. I asked out of curiosity, to check it out and try it.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Juanma Barranquero]

At the bare minimum, the following patch is needed; with it the
emacs-unicode-2 branch builds on Windows with GCC.

Additionally, I'm seeing a few error messages while bytecompiling the .el files:

 File local-variables error: (error "Local variables entry is missing
the suffix")

Not sure whether that's a general problem or NTEmacs-specific.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u



Index: lib-src/makefile.w32-in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/emacs/emacs/lib-src/makefile.w32-in,v
retrieving revision 2.25.2.6
diff -u -2 -r2.25.2.6 makefile.w32-in
--- lib-src/makefile.w32-in	29 Jul 2005 01:54:39 -0000	2.25.2.6
+++ lib-src/makefile.w32-in	29 Jul 2005 11:08:15 -0000
@@ -191,13 +191,4 @@
  	$(lispsource)international/mule-cmds.elc \
  	$(lispsource)international/characters.elc \
-	$(lispsource)international/ucs-tables.elc \
-	$(lispsource)international/utf-8.elc \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-1.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-2.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-3.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-4.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-5.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-8.el \
-	$(lispsource)international/latin-9.el \
  	$(lispsource)case-table.elc

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Kenichi Handa]

In article <f7ccd24b050729014358a5a36c@mail.gmail.com>, Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> On 7/29/05, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org> wrote:
>>  Such a cosmetic change will cause lots of conflicts in
>>  emacs-unicode branch.  Could you please postpone it until
>>  emacs-unicode is merged?

> Sure.

> And BTW, when will it be merged? Soon after the 22.1 release?

Yes, that is what I heard from Richard ... long ago.

---
Kenichi Handa
handa@m17n.org

Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"

[Richard M. Stallman]

    Such a cosmetic change will cause lots of conflicts in
    emacs-unicode branch.  Could you please postpone it until
    emacs-unicode is merged?

There's no reason to do this now if it would cause any inconvenience.