Re: struct interface

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Clark McGrew <mcgrew@ale.physics.sunysb.edu> writes:

>     Mikael> Regarding structs: As I've said earlier, structs will be
>     Mikael> replaced, so it's probably waste of time change them.
> 
> How soon?

When someone does it.

>     Mikael> Regarding your suggestion above: When we design the new
>     Mikael> record representation, the "layouts" of objects should
>     Mikael> probably allow for SCM values to be located non-word
>     Mikael> aligned within the object.
> 
> Why?  I don't see the utility and it will increase the complexity of
> the access macros since misaligned SCM values can't be accessed
> directly on some architectures.

Because SCM values situated in a struct can be positioned non-SCM
aliged on some architectures.  Consider an application object which
has an SCM value at some location within a struct.

We would also like to have a tool which can automatically build GOOPS
glue-code for library header files.  (It might turn out that it is
necessary to annotate such header files in some way.)