On Sat Sep 13, 2025 at 6:32 PM CEST, Diogo wrote:
> > 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.Ok, I think I'll do that. > > "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? Now that you mention it - it probably doesn't! :-) cheers felix
