Re: type-checking for metafiedness? (was: Re: Cores almost on demand in patcompile())

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Peter Stephenson
<p.stephenson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:51:05 +0000
> Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Pardon me if this has been discussed before, but why don't we introduce
>> the type definitions
>> and start incrementally replacing uses of "char *" with uses of these
>> types?
>
> This probably is a good idea, although the intermediate state where this
> has been only partly done is likely to be a bit of a mess.

I'd expect to encounter a lot of problems with (char **) arrays where
every element of the array is (or not) metafied.  (Hopefully there
aren't any that are mixed).  As was noted in the discussion of passing
around lengths of arrays when manipulating array parameters, the older
code makes a lot of assumptions about pointer arithmetic and s[1][1]
subscripting and so on.