Hi Felix
> CRUNCH's "char" is not a byte, it must hold UNICODE code points, which
> may be unexpected. Using typename is the proper way to handle this, but
> perhaps we should add a new type ("byte") or make "char" 8 bits and
> add "wchar_t"? I'm open to suggestions.
Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. Personally, now that I know, I'd be fine
with adding byte for 8bits and keeping char as it is.
If you are looking for another term, for example, golang uses the term
"rune" for large unicode chars AFAIK.
> "define-compound-accessors" distinguishes between structs and pointers
> to structs and generates different accessors. Just wrap change the
> code to "(define-compound-accessors (pointer (struct buf)) ...)",
> which will generate a constructor and accessors that return and
> accept pointers.
Great! I'll do that. Thank you!
Does it make sense accepting setters for non-pointer structs?
Cheers,
-Diogo
