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 20:31:20 +0300 Message-ID: <83zj5yzr87.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv7r3rbh.fsf@gmail.com> <83iocn0x3x.fsf@gnu.org> <87sibr2b10.fsf@gmail.com> <83d22u278u.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3ra4xgu.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429810302 15039 80.91.229.3 (23 Apr 2015 17:31:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ohwoeowho@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 23 19:31:33 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 1YlKyH-0000ud-Qa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:31:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41373 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKyG-0001zI-Tb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:31:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48387) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKyD-0001yw-1Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:31:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKy9-0003S3-2G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:31:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:56763) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YlKy8-0003Rw-QS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:31:20 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NN900100SM3QF00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:31:18 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NN9001IOSO6MY60@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 20:31:18 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 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:185827 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:14:09 -0400 > > > Why is it preferred to type BVAR (foo, name) instead of foo->name? > > I can't remember the original motivation, but the basic idea is that > BVAR may (at some point) expand to more code, to handle the fact that > maybe this info can sometimes be stored elsewhere. The question is do we still want to be able to detect direct references to these fields? If we do, we should keep the trailing underscores, I think.