Re: Feature freeze on October 1

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:12:41 +0900
> 
> > And what about CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY and
> > STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY?  Should we remove them and use,
> > respectively, CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE and STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE instead?
> > Or do we want to leave all these in place for now, to keep
> > the option of going back to using the unification in some
> > cases?
> 
> Ummm, how about doing this in coding.c and don't change the
> callers.
> 
> #define CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY CHAR_STRING_ADVANCE
> #define STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE_NO_UNIFY STRING_CHAR_ADVANCE
> 
> Then we won't forget that callers expect non-unify versions.

Done as trunk revision 110196.

Thanks.