Re: Adding new information to scm_t_port (was Re: always O_BINARY?)

[Andy Wingo]

On Thu 28 Feb 2013 12:04, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> On Thu 28 Feb 2013 04:24, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Instead of having 'input_cd' and 'output_cd' point directly to the
>>> platform's iconv_t structures, let's have them point to our own internal
>>> structure(s) that hold the needed transcoder state.  This could include
>>> things like the state for internally-implement encoding(s) (e.g. UTF-8
>>> BOM handling), EOL style, and iconv_t pointer(s) if appropriate.
>>
>> Great idea.
>>
>> I would call it a generic "port-private" data structure; it is not
>> limited to transcoder state.
>>
>>   struct scm_t_port_private;
>>   #define SCM_I_PORT_PRIVATE ((struct scm_t_port_private*)((ptob)->input_cd))
>
> Sounds good to me, perhaps with ‘input_cd’ changed to ‘internal’ or
> similar.

That would be an API break; probably best to keep it with the same name,
no?  Though I guess it doesn't matter in this particular case...

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/