Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thanks, this looks good. As a matter of fact it almost precisely > matches what I was about to email you. The only significant difference > is that yours has "#define time(x) git_time(x)" whereas mine had > "#define time git_time". Since Git never takes the address of 'time' > the two macro definitions should have equivalent effects when used in > Git. That is a valid concern. Writing &time would not be caught by compilers, and you would not notice such a mistake until you run "nm -ug" on the result. On the other hand, straight token replacement will risk renaming variables and structure members, and I was not sure if we have such use of the identifier "time". As long as people do not use "time" and "git_time" at the same time as such identifiers, that would not be an issue (except for perhaps expecting to see them in debuggers). Writing "git_time" and "time" at the same time for identifiers not related to the time(2) function would not be caught by compilers, either, but it feels much less likely mistake we would make in the future, so let me drop (x) from the macro. Thanks.
