On 06/03/2008, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
quoted text
> Hi,
>
>  On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Reece Dunn wrote:
>
>  > 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.

Ok.

quoted text
>  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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html