On 1/11/2023 1:26 PM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 10:09:32AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote:
>
>> I did think that requiring callers to create their own object_info
>> structs (which takes at least four lines) would be too much, but
>> the number of new callers is so low that I think this is a fine place
>> to stop.
>
> Yeah, that was my feeling. I do wonder if there's a way to make it
> easier for callers of oid_object_info_extended(), but I couldn't come up
> with anything that's nice enough to merit the complexity.
>
> For example, here's an attempt to let the caller use designated
> initializers to set up the query struct:
> + struct object_info oi = OBJECT_INFO(.typep = type,
> + .sizep = size,
> + .contentp = &data);
Your macro expansion creates this format:
struct object_info oi = {
.type = type,
.sizep = size,
.contentp = &data,
};
And even this expansion looks a bit better than the inline
updates:
> - oi.typep = type;
> - oi.sizep = size;
> - oi.contentp = &data;
So maybe that's a preferred pattern that we could establish
by replacing the existing callers. It's also such a minor
point that I wouldn't say it's a high priority to do.
Thanks,
-Stolee
