[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *" |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 06:40:22 +0900 |
2005/7/29, Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>:
> The FRAME_PTR macro seems not too successful: there are ~1300 uses of
> "struct frame *" on 39 files, vs. ~270 uses of FRAME_PTR on 30 files.
>
> Should this be unified, eventually?
It seems completely pointless to have an obfuscating macro (ok it's
actually a typedef) like FRAME_PTR. It's very old, though so maybe
there was some reason a long time ago...
I'd say, get rid of it.
-Miles
--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
- FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *",
Miles Bader <=
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Kenichi Handa, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Miles Bader, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/29
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Miles Bader, 2005/07/29
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/29
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Miles Bader, 2005/07/29
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/29
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/29