Andy Shevchenko wrote: [..] > > > but if you want to stick with your variant some improvements can be done: > > > > > > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \ > > > for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = _p = __root->child; \ > > > __p && _p; _p = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p)) > > > > > > > > > 1) no need to have local variable in parentheses; > > > 2) no need to have iterator in parentheses, otherwise it would be crazy code > > > that has put something really wrong there and still expect the thing to work. > > > > Why not: > > > > #define for_each_resource_XXX(_root, _p) \ > > for (typeof(_root) __root = (_root), __p = _p = __root->child; \ > > _p; _p = next_resource_XXX(__root, _p)) > > > > The __p is only to allow for _p to be initialized in the first statement > > without causing a new "_p" shadow to be declared. > > If people think this would be better than the existing patterns, okay. fine. I think this case is different than the existing patterns in that the iterator variable needs to be initiatlized from a declared variable, and as Ying said, my proposal is busted. To your point though, lets add a comment on why this macro is a bit different to avoid people like me making bad cleanup suggestions.
