Daniel Colascione <
address@hidden> schrieb am Mi., 2. März 2016 um 21:14 Uhr:
On 03/02/2016 10:30 AM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
>
>
> Daniel Colascione <address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>> schrieb
> am Di., 1. März 2016 um 00:15 Uhr:
>
> On 02/29/2016 03:03 PM, Philipp Stephani wrote:
> > Is it a strict requirement that emacs_value be a pointer? If not,
> > couldn't we simply define it as int64 and assume that that will be
> large
> > enough to hold a Lisp_Object for the foreseeable future? Or do we
> expect
> > Lisp_Object to ever grow beyond 64 bits?
>
> I don't like giving users raw Lisp_Objects.
>
>
> But we are already doing that in most cases (64-bit pointers and
> Lisp_Objects): the pointer is not a real pointer, just a Lisp_Object
> cast to a pointer type.
I know, and I don't like it. I wish it were a real pointer.
Me too, but the chance to get that changed seems rather minimal.
Given that, we currently have the worst of both worlds: emacs_value is not a real pointer, but still bound by the size of a pointer. Since we won't be able to change emacs_value any more once 25.1 is released, now is the last chance to get its definition changed.