Re: Patch for fields of `struct buffer'

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "RMS" == Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

RMS> That goal seems unobjectionable, but why do you need to change these
RMS> calls in the trunk to be able to work on your branch?

I replied to this but never got a reply in return.

Do you still object to me installing the `struct buffer' macro change on
the trunk?  I think I have responded to all of your objections; the most
important thing (IMO) is that the change is much more easily backed out
than put in.  This means it has very little risk.  (I also don't find it
very ugly, at least in its original BUF_NAME form -- more like in
keeping with much of Emacs, GCC, and GDB.)

Tom