From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Oleh Krehel Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD? Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:39:10 +0200 Message-ID: <87d22oem75.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87lhhjuq26.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C48F.2020005@cs.ucla.edu> <87fv7rupcc.fsf@gmail.com> <5538C6C0.2000609@cs.ucla.edu> <83sibr15ac.fsf@gnu.org> <878udjun89.fsf@gmail.com> <83pp6v14cy.fsf@gnu.org> <87sibr84hb.fsf@gmail.com> <83oamf12ax.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv7rqcc7.fsf@gmail.com> <83lhhj10mb.fsf@gnu.org> <877ft0fpax.fsf@gmail.com> <83oamcxx99.fsf@gnu.org> <83k2x0xobm.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430207125 29672 80.91.229.3 (28 Apr 2015 07:45:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 28 09:45:21 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 1Yn0Cd-00058A-OF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:45:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59296 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn0Cd-00038G-6g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:45:11 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44226) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn0Ca-00035O-5e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:45:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn0CU-0003ds-Dq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:45:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]:34249) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yn0CU-0003dP-7F; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 03:45:02 -0400 Original-Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so101354795wic.1; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=TQQ7c4wtukygSXLx6sFPR3Dgr1SnoXKMyEI4pAvz8RY=; b=J+g6r+C2lMvjdrhcynmJno1d3RH31u6827RuImZXIsDFOO9Q7cCYoiZ5l8fWNwM077 fgPs64wkHT3TIi+f6JVXJFYV0BfBNuXfnTCTnz414UuFHWHt6+fUgC/Pgjs64z8G+yxU acC4W7OIFkp42tTTNsuAAwbkv56a/6muHgc2hEB6/XTCCoGYD7oSgnlv3coGFe4EyCVw 7xOTZrLoVimpPSxLWjc1vgfsL/X0Xg+KZzaAU0QILu/lk5BhwZM6WzKTZhcbtg4fqLcl 4JuD6OVLJka75iLtFx4lNCm+nFNeORaG/OTiPe219VmtRxU1p0oZNGa+U6nVZognen8Z 6JLw== X-Received: by 10.180.186.5 with SMTP id fg5mr27429550wic.60.1430207101451; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from firefly (dyn069045.nbw.tue.nl. [131.155.69.45]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id es5sm32823858wjc.30.2015.04.28.00.45.00 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:45:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83k2x0xobm.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:41:33 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a 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:185950 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Cc: Oleh Krehel , eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:28:02 -0400 >> >> > I'd like to know as well. So far no one objected to leaving the >> > trailing underscores for the sake of the concurrency branch. So >> > unless someone does come up with objections soon, I'd interpret that >> > as meaning that BVAR and KVAR should still append the underscore, and >> > the fields marked INTERNAL till today should have that underscore. >> >> I'm not opposed to removing INTERNAL_FIELD and wouldn't oppose removing >> the underscore either. But if Eli wants to keep either of them that's >> fine by me as well. > > Unless the concurrency branch is officially and finally dead, I'd like > to keep the underscores, to make it easier to revive that branch, if > and when some volunteer emerges. I think that a good start towards concurrency is making the code as simple as possible. Removing INTERNAL_FIELD is a tiny step towards that goal. Perhaps, removing some other abstraction mechanisms that don't actually do anything yet (but potentially could be useful in the future) would also be good. Concurrency would come with its own abstractions, I think the old ones would just get in the way. >> The only problem I have with this is the fact that we're just going >> back&forth on this. > > We didn't yet get back on this, except in the > scratch/remove-internal-field branch. Should I update the patch to include the underscores everywhere? Oleh