Re: Char-related crashes (hopefully) fixed
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull(a)sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> writes:
Second, I'm repeating it because as far as I know everybody who
writes Emacs Lisp would prefer that their code function correctly in
as many environments as possible, as long as it costs them nothing
to write it that way. You feel that way, too, you've said so. Do
you habitually write code _knowing_ that if the wrong somebody
borrows it, their application will break?
I don't know how I write code anymore. The MULE APIs have never been
documented, and it's never been published what is and what is not safe
in Mule. I know my code contained the implicit int->char conversions,
because that was easier to write.
Mule breaks too much to be worthy of so much consideration at this
level. Yes, I believe new C code should adhere to existing
abstractions, but I'm not so convinced that we should break (the rest
of) the Lisp world for the sake of Asians. I explained to you many
times now why I tell all my friends to compile _without_ Mule. I'm
not about to repeat it.