Hi, I agree with your comments and fixes and I'll address them soom. Just a few notes...
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "SuS v2" isn't quite a reason for testing, is it? I think you need a > few more words here. I meant that they may not be available everywhere. I should certainly make it clearer. > That's a lot of constant definitions! Did you consider the possibility of > any other approach (e.g. symbols)? I'm no longer sure it's generally good to use symbol to that end. It creates secondary name spaces where regular module-based access control cannot be used. There's nothing obliging us to use integers for those constants. For instance, `DAY_1' could be defined as: (define DAY_1 (cons 'a 'b)) Then, if a piece of code doesn't know (or cannot access) the value of `DAY_1', it cannot forge it and consequently cannot get the effect of `(language-information DAY_1)'. This is the same as what happens with other bindings. Now, as Kevin said, the names are very C-ish... >> + c_result = strdup (c_result); >> + >> + codeset = (char *) alloca (strlen (tmp_codeset) + 1); >> + strcpy (codeset, tmp_codeset); > > Can we avoid alloca here? We know from another current thread that > some systems don't seem to have it. Sure, but `alloca ()' may be faster on most platforms and it avoids leaks. Isn't it just that we should update the `alloca' blob from the Autoconf manual? > That's as far as I've got for now. Does anyone else have a cunning > way of reviewing a big diff like this? I'm finding it quite slow. It > would be nicer if epatch or something similar worked, but for me it > doesn't. Unfortunately, no. Thanks! Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
