From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: 'struct window' cleanup #3
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:37:19 +0300
Message-ID: <83bok48xm8.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <4FE827B6.6020306@yandex.ru>
	<jwvr4t3bfzd.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
	<4FE89369.2000708@gmx.at> <4FE896A9.3090002@yandex.ru>
	<4FE9643C.1090201@gmx.at> <83a9zq9jhp.fsf@gnu.org>
	<jwv8vf98u3p.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
	<83lij98nhj.fsf@gnu.org> <4FEAB1EA.3000307@yandex.ru>
	<jwvfw9g7v6n.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340818683 9156 80.91.229.3 (27 Jun 2012 17:38:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:38:03 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 27 19:38:01 2012
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1SjwBk-0006bL-C9
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:38:00 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59254 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1SjwBk-0005KA-BT
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:38:00 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48404)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1SjwBg-0005JW-MP
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:58 -0400
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1SjwBb-0005Jz-SH
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:56 -0400
Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:56432)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1SjwBb-0005Jh-KE
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:51 -0400
Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by
	a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id
	<0M6A00K00E82HQ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for
	emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:37:06 +0300 (IDT)
Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il
	(HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id
	<0M6A00JABE9TIJO0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>;
	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:37:05 +0300 (IDT)
In-reply-to: <jwvfw9g7v6n.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta)
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." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:151232
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/151232>

> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:32:15 -0400
> Cc: , emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >    /* Right after splitting windows, last_point may be nil.  */
> >    && INTEGERP (w->last_point);
> >    My tests never shows zero here, so I'm installing assertion instead.
> 
> Since positions are strictly positive, you can use -1 as meaning "nil".
> (I recommend -1 over 0, because it's "more different").

I agree, but beware of those 'if (!w->last_point)' gotchas...