On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:10:09PM -0500, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> > That would be fine with me. Though I would love it if we could find a
> > shorter name for the associated functions. For example,
> > argv_array_pushf() can make lines quite long, and something like
> > argv_pushf() is easier to read (in my opinion). And that might work
> > because "argv" is pretty unique by itself, but "string" is not.
> >
> > Some one-word name like "strarray" might work, though I find that is not
> > quite catchy. I guess "strv" is short if you assume that people know the
> > "v" suffix means "vector".
>
> struct strs {...};
>
> void strs_init(struct strs *);
> void strs_push(struct strs *, const char *);
> void strs_pushf(struct strs *, const char *fmt, ...);
> void strs_pushl(struct strs *, ...);
> void strs_pushv(struct strs *, const char **);
> void strs_pop(struct strs *);
> void strs_clear(struct strs *);
> const char **strs_detach(struct strs *);
>
> ...is short, feels pretty natural, and doesn't require understanding
> "v" for "vector".
Not bad. The "v" carries the information that it _is_ a NULL-terminated
vector and not some other list-like structure (and so is suitable for
feeding to execv, etc). But that may just be obvious from looking at its
uses and documentation.
-Peff
