Re: PATCH: Removing macros in xcl.h and adding casts to Xlib types

On 7/17/05, Barton C Massey <bart-sKt6ljEC1JY3uPMLIKxrzw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> If the cast macros in the source are confusing, I think
> there are two better options: (1) move the cast function
> generation into the XCB-XML, 

Hiding the code away in an XML file somewhere is a worse idea in my
opinion.   Plus, I don't think any of XCL is being generated with
XCB-XML at the momement, so adding this functionality into the build
system seems like it would be a lot more work then its worth.

> or (2) document the macros
> properly.  

That wouldn't hurt.  I didn't even notice them for a while.  I just
harry C code and glanced right by 'em.

> The features of macro-based generation are (a)
> fixes to the generation code propagate to all the cast
> functions, and 

There are only 14 macros.  That isn't a big job if they all need to be
modified in some way.

> (b) for the reader who does understand, this
> makes it clear that the cast functions are all the same and
> neatly summarizes what they are and how they are named.

That was why I declared them at the top of the header but then defined
them below.  They still line up, they are still grouped together in
the same way (i.e., those that cast XIDs and those that cast IDs), and
they still summarize the functionality really well.

> Definitely bug the list before you work on something like
> this; 

It only took an hour or so, so I'm not worried about it.  By "bug
list" do you mean send an e-mail describing the idea to the list first
and get some feedback before setting out on the work?

> we'd be happy to discuss it with you.  Thanks much, in
> any case, for the thought and the submission!
> 

Even if the patch isn't accepted, I want the functionality to cast
from XCB types to Xlib types.  I really hope you'll reconsider
accepting this patch, but if not, I would like to add these other
casts somewhere in the XCL.

-- 

Regards,

Travis Spencer