Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD?

[Oleh Krehel]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Oleh Krehel <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
>> Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:28:02 -0400
>> 
>> > I'd like to know as well.  So far no one objected to leaving the
>> > trailing underscores for the sake of the concurrency branch.  So
>> > unless someone does come up with objections soon, I'd interpret that
>> > as meaning that BVAR and KVAR should still append the underscore, and
>> > the fields marked INTERNAL till today should have that underscore.
>> 
>> I'm not opposed to removing INTERNAL_FIELD and wouldn't oppose removing
>> the underscore either.  But if Eli wants to keep either of them that's
>> fine by me as well.
>
> Unless the concurrency branch is officially and finally dead, I'd like
> to keep the underscores, to make it easier to revive that branch, if
> and when some volunteer emerges.

I think that a good start towards concurrency is making the code as
simple as possible. Removing INTERNAL_FIELD is a tiny step towards that
goal.

Perhaps, removing some other abstraction mechanisms that don't actually
do anything yet (but potentially could be useful in the future) would
also be good. Concurrency would come with its own abstractions, I think
the old ones would just get in the way.

>> The only problem I have with this is the fact that we're just going
>> back&forth on this.
>
> We didn't yet get back on this, except in the
> scratch/remove-internal-field branch.

Should I update the patch to include the underscores everywhere?

Oleh