Re: Is it time to remove INTERNAL_FIELD?

[Oleh Krehel]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Oleh Krehel <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
>> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 09:39:10 +0200
>> 
>> > Unless the concurrency branch is officially and finally dead, I'd like
>> > to keep the underscores, to make it easier to revive that branch, if
>> > and when some volunteer emerges.
>> 
>> I think that a good start towards concurrency is making the code as
>> simple as possible. Removing INTERNAL_FIELD is a tiny step towards that
>> goal.
>
> I'm not against removing INTERNAL_FIELD.  I was only talking about
> keeping the code that appends the underscores to fields in buffer and
> keyboard structures where we were doing that with INTERNAL_FIELD.
>
>> Perhaps, removing some other abstraction mechanisms that don't actually
>> do anything yet (but potentially could be useful in the future) would
>> also be good. Concurrency would come with its own abstractions, I think
>> the old ones would just get in the way.
>
> We append the underscores not as some abstraction, but as an aid to
> catch early code that will interfere with merging the concurrency
> branch.
>
>> Should I update the patch to include the underscores everywhere?
>
> Not everywhere, only where the fields are used in BVAR and KVAR.

So that means everywhere, except allow to use BVAR and KVAR macros
without an underscore. Did I understand correctly?

Oleh