[m-dev.] some issues I noticed while working on string.m

Zoltan Somogyi zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com
Mon Nov 17 11:51:02 AEDT 2014

On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:10:46 +1100, Peter Wang <novalazy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you please tell me whether this means that the predicates on which
> > these comments appear may in the future start throwing exceptions
> > when they find surrogate code points? And if not, what DO they mean?
> That's what it means.  Reading the comments again, they are ambiguous.

OK, I will reword them.

> It was intentional.  "codepoint" is nonstandard if somewhat common, so
> it may have been the wrong choice.  I won't be too opposed to renaming
> the predicates (with backwards compatibility), except in the interests
> of reducing library churn.

I will just add a note to do this rewording when (and if) we ever
break backwards compatibility for some other reason.
> > Do the types line and text_file really belong in string.m? To me,
> > they seem to belong more in string.m, next to the comment that
> > says "Line oriented streams". Any opinions?
> I agree with Julien.

I will leave the types where they are, with a note saying
why they are there.

> > - adding an option to foreign_decl directives that allows users to tell the
> >   compiler that it can leave out the #line directive, probably because
> >   the foreign code is unlikely to yield error messages; or
> > - we can simply never write out #line directives in such cases, figuring
> >   that this is true for a large majority of the things people put in
> >   foreign_decl pragmas.
> > 
> > Any opinions?
> I think it should be controlled by a command-line option, e.g.
> --line-numbers-for-foreign-decl, off by default.

Everyone who has spoken so far is fine with that, so I will
do that later this week.


More information about the developers mailing list