From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer' Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <874o8tdjt0.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1296239399 26714 80.91.229.12 (28 Jan 2011 18:29:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:29:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Tom Tromey , Emacs discussions To: no-spam@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jan 28 19:29:55 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pit4u-0001iN-Ug for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 19:29:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32950 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pit4u-000754-EU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:48 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60729 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pit4q-00072v-4B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:44 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pit4p-0008Pm-1t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:44 -0500 Original-Received: from tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.34]:45497) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pit4o-0008Pc-OK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:43 -0500 Original-Received: from toip5.srvr.bell.ca ([209.226.175.88]) by tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20110128182929.PAJW19531.tomts13-srv.bellnexxia.net@toip5.srvr.bell.ca> for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:29 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAJOUQk1GHv6P/2dsb2JhbAClAHO7MYVPBIUYim4 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO ceviche.home) ([70.30.254.143]) by toip5.srvr.bell.ca with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2011 13:29:29 -0500 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 0B7C4660DC; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 13:29:29 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <874o8tdjt0.fsf@kfs-lx.rd.rdm> (Kim F. Storm's message of "Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:23:07 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) X-Received-From: 209.226.175.34 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:135172 Archived-At: > Rather than defining all the individual BUF_xxxx(buf) macros > for each field buf->xxxx field, would it be possible to factor > this out in a single accessor macro like > B_(buf, XXXX) That sounds even better, yes. > If necessary, behind the scenes (by help of the proprocessor), > this could further map into a BUF_xxxx(buf) macro, but I don't I don't think that would be necessary, because I think the treatment is the same for all fields. Stefan