Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Note that an empty strvec instance (with zero elements) does not
> necessarily need to be an instance initialized with the singleton.
Correct.
When (vec.nr == 0), vec.v may be pointing at
(1) an allocated piece of memory, if the strvec was previously used
to hold some strings; or
(2) singleton array with NULL.
and vec.v[0] is NULL. This is to allow you to pass vec.v[] as a
NULL terminated list of (char *) (aka argv[][]) to functions.
That can be said a bit differently and more concisely like so:
A strvec instance with no elements can have its member .v
pointing at empty_strvec[] or pointing at an allocated piece of
memory, and either way .v[0] has NULL in it, to allow you to
always treat vec.v[] as a NULL terminated array of strings, even
immediately after initialization.
and then you can lose the strvec_pop() illustration below that talks
about an allocated piece of memory that was previously used.
> The recently introduced `strvec_splice()` API is expected to be
> normally used with non-empty strvec's.
It is perfectly sensible to expect that you can splice your stuff
into an empty strvec, so all this sentence is saying is that a
strvec is more often non-empty than empty. I'd recommend dropping
this sentence.
Something like
When growing a strvec, we'd use a realloc() call on its .v[]
member, but a care must be taken when it is pointing at
empty_strvec[] and is not pointing at an allocated piece of
memory. strvec_push_nodup() and strvec_push() correctly do so.
The recently added strvec_splice() forgot to.
should be sufficient. Notice that I didn't have to invent a new
term "empty-singleton" at all ;-).
Thanks.
