Hi Neil, Neil Jerram <n...@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: [...] >>> Array_handle_release is a bad idea. >> >> Fair enough. > > FWIW, I agree (I think with both of you) that `we might need it in > future' is not a good argument, but that API compatibility is. OK. So we can proceed with the removal, leaving a no-op macro when SCM_ENABLE_DEPRECATED == 1. Andy, can you take care of this? :-) > I'm pretty sure it was about allowing C code to efficiently access and > modify uniform vector contents, but at the same time supporting > operations which might require the underlying storage to be > reallocated. > > The latter operations could include enlarging an existing vector, or > copy-on-write. But AFAICT we never implemented either of those ideas, > and the existing code never changes the underlying storage of a > vector. Thanks for the information. Ludo'.
