Đoàn Trần Công Danh <congdanhqx@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> void packet_flush(int fd)
>> {
>> - packet_trace("0000", 4, 1);
>> - if (write_in_full(fd, "0000", 4) < 0)
>> + packet_trace("0000", PACKET_HEADER_SIZE, 1);
>> + if (write_in_full(fd, "0000", PACKET_HEADER_SIZE) < 0)
>
> I think the magic number 4 is easier to follow than some macro
> PACKET_HEADER_SIZE defined elsewhere. Because reader may judge that is
> the size of "0000"
I hate to admit it immensely, but I tend to agree with you. In the
context of this single call,
write_in_full(fd, "0000", 4)
write_in_full(fd, "0000", PACKET_HEADER_SIZE)
I find the former vastly easier.
> How about (this ugly code):
>
> packet_trace("0000", sizeof "0000" - 1, 1);
> if (write_in_full(fd, "0000", sizeof "0000" - 1) < 0)
Yeah, that is ugly. I was thinking more in the direction of
replacing these three-argument write_in_full with something like
#define write_constant(fd, constant_string) \
write_in_full((fd), (constant_string), strlen(constant_string))
with some preprocessor magic to make the compilation break when the
second parameter to the macro is not a string constant.
