Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof(a)math.ethz.ch&gt; writes: No. XSTRING_DATA is exactly what the name says, dereferencing Lisp_Object to struct Lisp_String, and then dereferencing it to a Bufbyte pointer. It adhering to all the normal XEmacs naming conventions. XSTRING_DATA (logically) returns a Bufbyte pointer, which should cries for conversion when used on the outside. People who hack XEmacs should know what they are doing. If they don't, renaming XSTRING_DATA to something else won't help one bit. Perhaps there is a way to improve my Mule-correct coding section in the Internals manual? Have you looked at it? Why does it look scary? Yes, you spotted an actual bug, and yes, the patch for it is trivial. But what's the problem with the normal, non-buggy XSTRING_DATA's in the code? -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr&gt; | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- - Now what did we learn from this? - I learned what my liver looks like!