From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mike Gran Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, master, updated. release_1-9-1-18-g904a78f Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:58:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1249149509.12325.7535.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <87fxcd92pg.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1249149543 28020 80.91.229.12 (1 Aug 2009 17:59:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:59:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 01 19:58:56 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MXIr9-00038m-OT for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:58:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50945 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXIr9-0002pg-6C for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:58:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXIr6-0002o4-F8 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:58:52 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXIr4-0002mF-VE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:58:51 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56152 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXIr4-0002mC-Pp for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:58:50 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp109.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([98.136.44.54]:23407) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MXIr4-0005Yd-6t for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:58:50 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 29996 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2009 17:58:48 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Mime-Version:X-Mailer:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=G9Z3kdIFzAs4aLQWyHsX/B6N+wQybOX0prt1yP5ayRxVyj3Rzi7z/twSMZUMFHU66/lep3Oky1w+wt8W0QsgJAZ7x9ncNqqM43dXPTRJ3qt/HWdM0aATkLTx2gVC/VrnjS49kJbmjogkpr5ku/R0EjWS7VXRfngKJ5GilZVs/Ow= ; Original-Received: from ppp-71-142-0-233.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net (spk121@71.142.0.233 with plain) by smtp109.prem.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 01 Aug 2009 10:58:48 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: FzNaA9iswBDuBl1BmgaIRDaP9Q-- X-YMail-OSG: 7WxX_YAVM1m1P999sFvsd9U_pqi7vL5pvun4J9srgm.SZEKoaO8MCrrJ9wnuBxLbQ0HKcFnXFkJYEyBsMeLv7MYqV5wSKYHfY5lWVKK57joXuHZ1l3QHQNWTJ2Lbf3eQzme3qf_MU8IZULkp5yRi5HSVJ38E0k7B7Q_3WX6CzQblW4Xrfk2PQ_8ou5BXnhFRtAdzzEYHeptcxgxVZ_1rIs65jQjL9Z3Bys4cLOBhWbmIQTLr3H_fXIaUiEC607xPZeNb_sFxA64WKTEgHvDhWas7bwGe7L4mn7E9dJfcoxZ8r8czK7PFFPLFKmggYfGR4XxOuu6gNTC5jrzfN8vcvDiHEsX668FK6w8- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 In-Reply-To: <87fxcd92pg.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.5 (2.24.5-2.fc10) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:9010 Archived-At: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 01:21 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > "Michael Gran" writes: > My remark about user-visibility was actually regarding this commit, not > the previous one. > > > +#ifndef SCM_WCHAR_DEFINED > > +typedef scm_t_int32 scm_t_wchar; > > +#define SCM_WCHAR_DEFINED > > +#endif > > Why is this #ifdef hack needed? > It was to work around a problem, which, apparently, I can no longer reproduce. So, it isn't needed. > > +#define SCM_MAKE_CHAR(x) ({scm_t_int32 _x = (x); \ > > + _x < 0 \ > > + ? SCM_MAKE_ITAG8((scm_t_bits)(unsigned char)_x, scm_tc8_char) \ > > + : SCM_MAKE_ITAG8((scm_t_bits)_x, scm_tc8_char);}) > > This macro uses a GCC extension, which is not acceptable for Guile. Can > you please rewrite it in standard C? (The only risk is multiple > expansion of X, but that's OK.) OK. There was one case of multiple expansion causing side effects, but, I fixed that. > Does X < 0 mean ASCII? And why is it truncated to 8 bits? A comment > just above indicating the encoding trick would be handy IMO. OK. Wide chars are always positive, but, the upper 128 of signed 8-bit C chars are negative, which is the reason for that logic. >> + if (i<256) >> + { >> + /* Character is graphic. Print it. */ >> + scm_putc (i, port); >> + } > Style (extraneous braces). Noted. If that's the standard then so be it. But, for this case, I declare, in classic flamewar fashion, that the standard is nonsense. Thanks, Mike