[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *"
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *" |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:29:30 +0200 |
On 7/28/05, Miles Bader <address@hidden> wrote:
> It seems completely pointless to have an obfuscating macro (ok it's
> actually a typedef) like FRAME_PTR.
And other structs (like window, buffer, etc.) are used directly.
> I'd say, get rid of it.
Fine by me.
Any objections, anyone?
--
/L/e/k/t/u
- FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Miles Bader, 2005/07/28
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *",
Juanma Barranquero <=
- 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
- Re: FRAME_PTR vs "struct frame *", Kenichi Handa, 2005/07/29