Paul Svensson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Tim Peters wrote:
> >[Paul Svensson]
> >> #define gc_next gc_internals.internal_gc_next
> >Yuck.
> Why do you consider this abuse ? This pattern is used all over the place,
> you can study it for example in the system headers for linux of glibc.
> It's perfectly legitimate to not want to spread knowledge of the innards
> of a struct (it should be wrapped another layer, yes) all over the place.
Huh? Say I include a header that abomination in it. Now consider the
following line of code:
PyGC_Head *gc_next;
Oops. The only reasonable alternative to Tim's approach that I can
think of would be:
#define GC_NEXT(op) ((AS_GC(op))->gc.gc_next)
#define GC_PREV(op) ((AS_GC(op))->gc.gc_prev)
#define GC_REFS(op) ((AS_GC(op))->gc.gc_refs)
I don't think that's any better.
Neil
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4