Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Sure. Will do that. -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
