On 06/03/2008, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Reece Dunn wrote: > > > On 06/03/2008, Mike Hommey <mh@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 02:14:43AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > > > > The most common use of addf() was to init a strbuf and addf() right > > > > away. Since it is so common, it makes sense to have a function > > > > strbuf_initf() to wrap both calls into one. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, C (and cpp) has no way to make this easy without > > > > code duplication, as we need to va_init() in strbuf_addf() possibly > > > > a few times. So the code for addf() is copied. Fortunately, the > > > > code is pretty short, so not too much had to be copied as-is. > > > > > > > > > The problem with code duplication is not about code size, but more > > > about not forgetting to fix bugs in all incarnations of the duplicated > > > code. > > > > > > Is it so ugly to use a macro ? > > > > Why not have a strbuf_vaddf and strbuf_vinitf that take a va_arg as a > > parameter. This would mean that you don't have code duplication, and it > > is flexible enough if you want to add more customisations in the future. > > No macro needed. This is what the printf/scanf family of functions do. > > > The problem is that we have to restart va_list() if the buffer was too > small. Ok. > So your suggestion is out, unless you suggest to implement the whole > printf mechanism... which I hope you're not. No, that was not my intention. My intention was that they were simple forwarding functions that handled the va_start and va_end calls. Is it possible to pass a void * to a strbuf_vaddf function that you can pass to va_start, so you can then restart the va_list? - Reece -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
