Re: port-for-each vs lazy sweep

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
>>> @@ -472,6 +480,7 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base)
>>>    scm_init_backtrace ();   /* Requires fluids */
>>>    scm_init_fports ();
>>>    scm_init_strports ();
>>> +  scm_init_ports ();
>>>    scm_init_gdbint ();           /* Requires strports */
>>>    scm_init_hash ();
>>>    scm_init_hashtab ();
>>> @@ -490,7 +499,6 @@ scm_i_init_guile (SCM_STACKITEM *base)
>>>    scm_init_numbers ();
>>>    scm_init_options ();
>>>    scm_init_pairs ();
>>> -  scm_init_ports ();
>> 
>> Why does it need to be moved?
>
> because gdb instantiates a port; I forgot why it used to work
> though.

You mean `gdbint.c', right?  Anyway, it would be better as a separate
patch.

>>> -  SCM_SETPTAB_ENTRY (port, pt);
>>> +  SCM_SETPTAB_ENTRY(port, pt);
>> 
>> Please follow GNU style.
>
> I have the impression that GUILE isn't really consistent 

That's not a valid excuse.  :-)

In addition, the above diff excerpt is altering well-formatted code for
no reason.

> time for a grand search & replace patch?

I don't think it'd be a good idea.  Let's just try to be consistent with
new code that goes in.

Thanks,
Ludovic.