Hi,

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Reece Dunn wrote:

quoted text
> On 06/03/2008, Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> 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.

So your suggestion is out, unless you suggest to implement the whole 
printf mechanism... which I hope you're not.

Ciao,
Dscho

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html