[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hash-table-{to, from}-alist
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: hash-table-{to, from}-alist |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:05:52 +0900 |
Ted Zlatanov writes:
> Can you and Stefan figure out whether to have print-readably or
> not? I was against it, and Stefan supported that. But let's see
> the pro argument and discuss this.
The pro argument is that unless you're debugging the hash table, it's
a PITA to have a hash table that gets recursively passed to each
function down the line taking up 20 screens for each frame in a
backtrace. "Not debugging the hash table" is the overwhelmingly
common occurance for me; usually I'm more interested in where in the
stack the value I'm going to be puthash'ing turned from gold into
garbage. OTOH, about half the time when I've got a chartable in the
stack, the chartable is buggy (in my experience almost all chartables
are write-once).
> Will the current state of things cause XEmacs breakage anywhere?
No. This is a user interface thing. If I'm right, XEmacs will get a
mild popularity boost if you always print the hash table. I'm not
going to complain about that! ;-)
> One idea I had is to check if print-readably is bound; if not then
> we act as if it was bound and t. That will DTRT in GNU Emacs and
> in XEmacs, I hope.
Hm? XEmacs already has the feature in C; your code will either get
ignored in XEmacs syncs, or its algorithms will be ported to our C
code. Definitely not something for you to worry about.
Re: hash-table-{to, from}-alist, Stefan Monnier, 2008/12/02