Re: BINDING_STACK_SIZE => SPECPDL_INDEX

[Stefan Monnier]

> 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.

Could people refrain from making such "gratuitous" pervasive changes ?
It's a pain in the ass to maintain local uncommitted changes when
you guys do that.


        Stefan