Re: Type-error in C code

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Julien Danjou writes:

 > Since I don't buy your arguments[1],

I'm not selling them, simply mentioning them for those who aren't
familiar with the history of the option (of course, I'm assuming the
history in Emacs is similar to that of XEmacs, but I think that's
reasonable).

 > I think it should NOT be an option, but the implementation itself.
 > 
 > OTOH, I only talked about using a struct including the integer, not
 > necessarily the whole union type used by use-union-lisp-type.

Well, please be careful, then; the message you replied to (and quoted)
specifically mentioned use-union-lisp-type.  Just because you
specifically described the trivial "int in a struct" type in an
earlier message doesn't mean that you wouldn't advocate making union
Lisp type the default, or perhaps only, implementation of Lisp
objects.  That was certainly the way I interpreted it.