Fix struct alloc

[hying-caritas]

And add test case for it.

[Kalimehtar]

Why :allocator? What if a struct has a method with name allocator() ? What wrong with my variant, where name is simply omitted? And why calculate size in all cases, not just when foreign-alloc is called?

[andy128k]

In this case size (fixnum) is captured, not info (foreign pointer). This seems reasonable.

[andy128k]

BTW, what about deallocation?

[hying-caritas]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Kalimehtar notifications@github.comwrote:

Why :allocator? What if a struct has a method with name allocator() ?

I think :allocate follows the same style as :this. If a struct has a constructor named allocate(), it can be called with (call "struct" 'allocate).

What wrong with my variant, where name is simply omitted?

That works. The "fix" in my patch subject is for foreign-alloc. I just think :allocate improve the readability and follow the same style of other code.

And why calculate size in all cases, not just when foreign-alloc is called?

In this way, we can calculate size during build struct class, not construct struct, we may use one built struct class to construct many structs. And we have chance to free info after bulding struct class.

[hying-caritas]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Andrey Kutejko notifications@github.comwrote:

BTW, what about deallocation?

Will use trivial-gc to do that.

[Kalimehtar]

I just think :allocate improve the readability and follow the same style of other code.

Then remove &optional from name in next commit.