Subject: Re: bug#11935: XINT etc. should be functions

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:12:14 +0300

> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:54:07 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> There are important advantages to not inlining: you can put
> breakpoints on them, for example.

Why would we need to put a breakpoint on a function that replaces the
XINT macro?  We've lived with a macro (where you cannot put a
breakpoint) for many years without any problems (AFAIK).  We have
debugger commands to display values of Lisp integers.  So I don't
think debuggability will be a problem in this particular case
(although it might be in others).