[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: safe_call1 considered harmful |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:18:48 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> find-operation-coding-system calls a registered function
> with a single argument; a list of arguments given to
> find-operation-coding-system. So, appending an extra
> argument at the tail of the list is fairly safe.
> It might seem that way; but what happens if we change the calling
> convention of one of the operations, giving it an additional argument?
> That may be necessary some day. I prefer the current convention.
We can change tar-mode/arc-mode/jka-compr to call
find-operation-coding-system with full number of arguments
plus the extra argument BUFFER. Then, a function called
from find-operation-coding-system can check if the number of
arguments is greater than the normal number (which can be
checked by subr-arity). If it is greater, the function can
know that the last argument is BUFFER. By that way, the
function doesn't break even if we add a new argument to
find-operation-coding-system.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- safe_call1 considered harmful, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/07/21
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/21
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/23
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/24
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful,
Kenichi Handa <=
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/31
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/31
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/31
- Re: safe_call1 considered harmful, Kenichi Handa, 2006/07/31