Re: Lisp watchpoints

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 15:35:24 -0500
> From: Noam Postavsky <address@hidden>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, John Wiegley <address@hidden>, 
> address@hidden
> 
> Would it help if I added a WATCHER_NUMBER_LIMIT to the enum after
> WATCHER_NUMBER_SET_REDISPLAY and used that instead?

Yes, thanks.  (WATCHER_NUMBER_LAST sounds a better name to me, but
that's nitpicking.)

> If window.c would be in charge of defining
> set-redisplay-internal-watcher-number, then it would need to know the
> right number, which would probably mean moving the
> WATCHER_NUMBER_SET_REDISPLAY definition to a header file away from the
> watcher_table definition

Yes, that's what I had in mind.

> which would be suboptimal, I think.

But then data.c will forever be doomed to export all the other watcher
numbers, utterly unrelated to it.  I think this would be worse.  Code
should live where its natural home is, even if that means to have some
declarations in a header.

> Or I guess we could just hard code the number 0 with a comment to look
> in data.c; is that too dirty?

Probably.  At least if we believe there will be other numbers.

Thanks.