James LewisMoss writes:
> >>>>> On 07 Nov 2000 13:55:47 -0600, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The only thing that concerns me about this is you are introducing into
> scheme an easy way to cause a segfault. Maybe implement it this way
> in the short term because it's the easiest and lets us get onto other
> more important things quickly, but this is a bad long term solution
> imo.
g-wrap already gives you more than enough opportunities to cause
segfaults from scheme. That's *always* been the case, and I can't see
how you could design a tool like g-wrap that didn't provide that
possibility.
I would be *very happy* if someone could prove me wrong. I hate
segfaults too :)
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
