GNU bug report logs - #75521
scratch/igc: Delete unused macro DEFVAR_LISP_NOPROX

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 75521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, pipcet <at> protonmail.com
Subject: bug#75521: scratch/igc: Delete unused macro DEFVAR_LISP_NOPROX
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:55:35 -0800

Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 19:45:55 +0000
>> Cc: pipcet <at> protonmail.com, 75521 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>>
> Too bad you did that while we are still discussing the issue.  Why the
> haste?  The result is that we now have confusing code, see below.

Sorry, I thought we had agreed already.  See below.

> Heh, I was looking at these:
>
>   void
>   defvar_lisp_nopro (struct Lisp_Fwd const *o_fwd, char const *namestring)
>   {
>     eassert (o_fwd->type == Lisp_Fwd_Obj);
>     Lisp_Object sym = intern_c_string (namestring);
>     XBARE_SYMBOL (sym)->u.s.declared_special = true;
>     XBARE_SYMBOL (sym)->u.s.redirect = SYMBOL_FORWARDED;
>     SET_SYMBOL_FWD (XBARE_SYMBOL (sym), o_fwd);
>   }
>
>   void
>   defvar_lisp (struct Lisp_Fwd const *o_fwd, char const *namestring)
>   {
>     eassert (o_fwd->type == Lisp_Fwd_Obj);
>     defvar_lisp_nopro (o_fwd, namestring);
>     staticpro (o_fwd->u.objvar);
>   }
>
> (which are still different) because I remembered that the macros just
> called the functions.  And your changes didn't remove
> defvar_lisp_nopro.  Isn't that confusing?

Aha, okay.  I misunderstood your question.

I didn't think it was worth ifdef'ing those two functions for HAVE_MPS,
as I didn't consider that someone might find it confusing.  Do you think
it would be better if we did?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.