James Bielman wrote:
>I wonder if MEM-AREF might be
>better given a more generic name and documented as the default accessor
>for foreign pointers.
I think mem-AREF is fine, since (apropos "AREF") will find it, and it nicely
fits array access.
Yet I also thought MEM-REF's offset-as-bytes needs better visibility (presence
in the user's mind & documentation). That's precisely why I submitted one patch
to the documentation on 2005-12-23. Let's hope it will be enough and this issue
will not become a FAQ or a FMB (frequently made bug).
I think it's perfectly fine for MEM-REF to count in bytes. Such a low-level
operator is needed.
> I don't think user code will need to use the more
>primitive features of MEM-REF directly very often...
What about dereferencing a pointer (not as a slot in a struct)? mem-ref is the
only candidate for that.
BTW, thanks to Yaroslav for checking whether the documentation works. Every
project needs such contributions.
Regards,
Jorg Hohle.
_______________________________________________
cffi-devel mailing list
cffi-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
