> 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). > Yes, I think so. Since the content of this part needs to be modified for the parsing of all atoms, I will put it in a separate topic to complete. > 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. > Yes, this enhances its generalization ability. > > [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; > -- ZheNing Hu
