Re: ptrdiff_t misuse

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > Not for someone who hacks Emacs sources.  [EMACS_INT is] like
 > Lisp_Object: you get used to it very quickly and use it naturally
 > after that.

Well, it isn't "like" Lisp_Object; it *is* Lisp_Object!  How natural
is *that*?

 > The type name actively resists that.  The "ptr" part is one problem,
 > the "diff" part is another.  None of them is related to the typical
 > usage of the positional values.

Huh?  The only way I can understand that is that people who have no
clue about programming in C are programming in C!  Don't you find that
scary?

 > I expect them to see the common practice [using EMACS_POS] in Emacs
 > sources and follow suit.  If not, they will get comments on their
 > code to that effect and learn fast enough.

Ditto ptrdiff_t.

 > I didn't have you (or myself) in mind when I suggested EMACS_POS ;-)
 > I worry about newcomers, and would like to make their learning curve
 > in the matter to be as un-steep as possible.

I worry about newcomers, and I would prefer (if I'm going to be
reviewing) that they have a clue about programming in C if they're
going to be programming in C.  C, unlike Lisp, is the antithesis of a
"safe" language.  *Especially* when using pointers (which, in case
you've forgotten ;-) is what C arrays -- including Emacs buffer and
string data -- are!

But I'm not going to be reviewing, most likely.  I just wanted to
point out that there is a school of thought opposed to yours.