On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> One advantage of the previous definition is that passing non-pointers >> to POINTER-EQ would (I assume) signal an error. What do you think? > > If this is the intended behavior in all platforms then I will have to think > about something else for the inline expansion as well -- is it ok if the > error check is removed for low safety settings?
Yes, I would say so. This is sort of stuff that the CFFI-SYS spec should be careful about but isn't yet. I've just added a handful of tests for this sort of stuff. -- Luís Oliveira http://r42.eu/~luis/ _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
