Am 10.07.24 um 15:55 schrieb Phillip Wood: > On 02/07/2024 16:14, phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Getting rid of the untyped test arguments is definitely a benefit of this approach. > > That got me thinking how we might make type-safe setup() > functions. The diff below shows how we could define a macro to > generate the functions. DEFINE_SETUP_FN(char, ch) defines setup_ch() > that takes a test function and a char that is passed to the test with > the initialized strbuf. I'm not sure that's the way we want to go for > this test file but I thought I'd post it in case it is useful for > future tests. I'm sympathetic with the idea of enhancing the weak type system of C to avoid mistakes. Hiding the use of void pointers behind typed wrappers can be useful. Not using void pointers is even better and clearer, though, where possible. Thought about using such wrappers around qsort(3) and friends long ago as well as parse_options() more recently, but didn't arrive at mergeable patches, yet. Initialization and destruction seem easy and familiar enough to not warrant the use of void pointers. No need to get fancy just for basic necessities IMHO. René
