Hi, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès escreveu: >>> @@ -472,6 +480,7 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base) >>> scm_init_backtrace (); /* Requires fluids */ >>> scm_init_fports (); >>> scm_init_strports (); >>> + scm_init_ports (); >>> scm_init_gdbint (); /* Requires strports */ >>> scm_init_hash (); >>> scm_init_hashtab (); >>> @@ -490,7 +499,6 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base) >>> scm_init_numbers (); >>> scm_init_options (); >>> scm_init_pairs (); >>> - scm_init_ports (); >> >> Why does it need to be moved? > > because gdb instantiates a port; I forgot why it used to work > though. You mean `gdbint.c', right? Anyway, it would be better as a separate patch. >>> - SCM_SETPTAB_ENTRY (port, pt); >>> + SCM_SETPTAB_ENTRY(port, pt); >> >> Please follow GNU style. > > I have the impression that GUILE isn't really consistent That's not a valid excuse. :-) In addition, the above diff excerpt is altering well-formatted code for no reason. > time for a grand search & replace patch? I don't think it'd be a good idea. Let's just try to be consistent with new code that goes in. Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
