Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,

> Alastair Reid wrote:
> > [As I was about to send this, it occured to me that maybe you had made a typo 
> > and meant to write 'peekByteOff' instead of 'peekElemOff'?  This seems less 
> > dodgy since peekByteOff is more usually used to access elements of structs 
> > where different elements have different types.]
> *aaargl* Of course, sorry for the confusion caused by my typo... I fully
> agree with your arguments for {peek,poke}ElemOff, but as you already
> mentioned above, the typical scenario for {peek,poke}ByteOff is access to
> structs, so the more general type is much more useful. It could be argued
> that this is a cast via the backdoor, but that would hold for {plus,minus}Ptr,
> too.

I wonder how this discrepancy between the libraries and the
report arose.  Did I simply make a mistake when writting the
report (then, this would qualify as an error in the report
anyway)?  Or did somebody change the library without
discussing the change (or me missing the discussion)?  Any

FFI mailing list

Reply via email to