On 2013-02-10 9:00 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote: > I think that's likely to be right for all platforms where Racket runs, > but we should define it in one place.
Cool. > Should we add `_size' to `ffi/unsafe', risking collisions with existing > code? This sounds best to me. (And while I think it should be _size_t, that would be inconsistent with the existing _uintXY etc. Hmm. Never mind.) There is no _size identifier in any of the current Racket codebase, so no collisions there. Does anyone have a full greppable snapshot of planet to check? Cheers, Tony ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
