From xemacs-m  Thu Jun 12 00:03:45 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA13747
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 00:03:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id WAA04293;
	Wed, 11 Jun 1997 22:03:52 -0700
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Ebola vaccines
References: <199706112130.RAA27486@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <864tb4es2d.fsf@kramer.in.aventail.com> <kigzpswpgpv.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Face: .ms,]-GbCx93oiG_y?lO#A_v*WjtFbY>t)"xbeDbV!Fi/|]2mupJ-ZC.BN/1xO6xTAYEj3=
 6P`N%X=D=+eRbAj*bT|[8k9c|<~X82C~~Y3Yeg<>m'.Ot[FHX+l2$dWq:VqUSNuGF%Lsp[SsDB$,?U
 *5T/WJ30M8@5(FB84/gDIA}?:9m(erl%/:W9&wv6o}Gvtut.Kn!mv<>AOAOMH7uaA;n%e5SsUxCqw%
 >!O>&]OCJ||UA\*+n2ODP(N-2V/;tC1y<d*~y.~mu]q?5f{gu{)2v0mvFP8+FyE}yy:G]u3
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "12 Jun 1997 06:50:36 +0200"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 11 Jun 1997 22:03:51 -0700
Message-ID: <m2oh9co1jc.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 47
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.56/XEmacs 20.3(beta7) - "Oslo"

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

> the value of `following-char' and `preceding-char' is actually
> *improved* in version 20 of the editor.

> (eq ?\0 0)
>   => nil

True.

> However, the following also fails:

> (eq ?A 65)
>   => nil

Also true.

> So we do need the Ebola warning to catch those places.

> I think the right thing is to add more cruft for avoiding Ebola
> warnings.  For example:

> (defvar ebola-dont-warn-list
>   '(folliwnig-char preceding-char)
>   "The backtraces not to warn on.")

> ...or something like that, anyway.

`Something like that' is what I'm currently doing.  It is not clean
and fails when the potentially Ebolified code is in a macro, but works 
well enough after you get the dumped lisp bytecompiled for the first
time.

> Another nit: the use of `char-before' in place of `preceding-char' is
> followed by a slight loss, because `char-before' does not have its
> byte-code.

True, this was discussed when `char-before' was added.

> Steve, when you were adding `char-before', why didn't you add a
> bytecode to it, or made it a macro?  This way our behavior is
> inconsistent.

Emacs bytecode compatibility.
-- 
steve@calag.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

