Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes:
>> Personally I'd be happy with
>>
>> - .default_backend = "merge", \
>> + .default_backend = xstrdup("merge"), \
>>
>> rather than adding an init function. I do agree that adding
>> rebase_options_release() is a good idea and the rest of the changes look
>> good to me
>
> Do we have any other cases where we allocate inside of a `_INIT` style
> macro? If so, I'd go with that precedence and just allocate inside of
> the macro. But if we don't, then I think I'm leaning more towards the
> way I did it in this patch.
>
> Happy to be convinced otherwise, I don't really feel all that strongly
> about this. I'm merely aiming for the interface wth least surprises.
FWIW, I am OK either way.
Having _init() and _release() may look symmetrical and there _might_
be cases where an initialization with a simple _INIT macro may not
suffice and we must have _init() function.
But otherwise, especially with .designated_initializers, the _INIT
macro makes it slightly easier to read (but not all much for this
particular case, whose initial values have too many non-zero values
and pretty much everything must be spelled out).
Thanks.
