Re: abstracting Lisp strings - macro name convention?

[Kim F. Storm]

Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:

>   STRING_REF(obj,index)
>   STRING_SET(obj,index,newbyteval)

Wouldn't it be more consistent to name these

  STRING_AREF(obj,index)
  STRING_ASET(obj,index,newbyteval)

> 
> With a pervasive change like this, do you really want separate
> checkins for each file and detailed function-level change log and CVS
> log entries for everything affected?  It's tedious, but doable; I'm
> just unclear on how important you feel that level of detail is for
> pervasive changes of such a simple nature.  Occasionally other changes
> have been checked in with log entries like "all callers changed"; most
> (but not all) of them are for static functions, so it's still
> describing changes confined to the one file.

For this case, I think it is acceptable (preferable IMO) to just list
the files where you make the changes, i.e. something like

        * file.c, file2.c, file3.c
        * file4.c, file5.c: Use new STRING_ macros.

-- 
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk