Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 11 Jul 2002 16:48:02 +0200, address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) wrote:

> Less cryptic that specpdl_index?  :-)

Well, er... yeah, I suppose... more or less. :-)

> Actually, `specpdl_index' isn't really good either, as it is not the
> current index, but the saved index.

Hm. I've blindly made the change, but now I have second thoughts.

In alloc.c, for example, there's that code:

  for (bind = specpdl; bind != specpdl_ptr; bind++)
    {
      mark_object (&bind->symbol);
      mark_object (&bind->old_value);
    }

Both specpdl and specpdl_ptr are pointers to the same structure, aren't
they? So specpdl_ptr - specpdl is really a count and not an index.

> Maybe one of these is better:
>         old_specpdl
>         saved_specpdl
>         specpdl_save 
>         specpdl_base
>         base_specpdl
>         specpdl_top

Assuming it is really an index and not a count, any one of those is
better, yes.


                                                           /L/e/k/t/u