[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello,
>
> Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Nice work, but it looks to me that PUSH_REF sets the value of the
>> (pstate->top)th element _before_ incrementing pstate->top. So
>> shouldn't your fix do the decrement first and then set the slot to
>> undefined?
>
> Yes, you're perfectly right.
Thanks. (It's always better to have other people check and agree!)
>> Also, is the () -> (void) change strictly related?
>
> In fact, it's strictly unrelated, but while we're at it (really `(void)'
> was meant here, not `()')...
Why? Does () have any symptoms that we should be concerned about?
> Below is an updated patch. I modified `PUSH_REF ()' as well so that it
> does PSTATE->TOP++ _after_ using the `PSTATE_STACK_SET ()' macro: this
> is safer.
Why is it safer? My inclination is that it's usually safer to change
less code, other things being equal.
> And, well, I couldn't resist the desire to "beautifully
> backslashify" `ENTER_NESTED_DATA ()' as well. :-) I hope this is not
> too much pollution for you.
No, I'm happy to go along with that one!
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
