On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 14:37 +0100, Luís Oliveira wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Stelian Ionescu <sione...@cddr.org> wrote: > > IMO the change to mem-aref is bad and will break a lot of code. Until > > now the contract of mem-aref was that it received a pointer to an array > > of the referenced type and returned a pointer offset into the array. > > The fact that it now returns a list is a gratuitous change, with no > > utility. If we actually want these semantics(not sure about it), it > > should be mem-aptr to implement them > > If it's not too difficult, can you extract a self-contained test case > that has been broken?
(defcstruct timespec (sec :int64) (usec :int64)) (with-foreign-object (p '(:struct timespec) 2) (mem-aref p '(:struct timespec) 1)) In order not to break existing code, I think that mem-aref should continue to return a pointer in this case instead of a plist. That would allow cffi-using code to work as it is and not have to be rewritten(an example that was brought to my attention is https://gitorious.org/commonqt/commonqt/blobs/master/info.lisp#line312). Since both functionalities will continue to be present in CFFI, it's better not to force users to review their code to decide, for each use of mem-aref, whether it needs to be converted to mem-aptr or not. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
