ZheNing Hu <adlternative@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> But I am afraid that the cost we paid for string matching here is too high,
If that is truly the concern (I do not know without measuring),
perhaps we should add a member next to the union to say which one of
the union members is valid, so that you can say
if (atom->atom_type == ATOM_TYPE_REMOTE_REF &&
atom->u.remote_ref.push)
(introduce an enum and define ATOM_TYPE_* after the member in the
union).
That would help futureproofing the code even further, as a new
synonym of "push" introduced laster [*] would not invalidate the check you are
adding there.
[Footnote]
* remote_ref_atom_parser() in the future may begin like so:
- if (!strcmp(atom->name, "push") || starts_with(atom->name, "push:"))
+ if (!strcmp(atom->name, "push") || starts_with(atom->name, "push:") ||
+ !strcmp(atom->name, "a-synonym-for-push"))
atom->u.remote_ref.push = 1;
