Subject: Re: search.c clean-up



On Nov 23, 2004, at 12:48, Jim Meyering wrote:

Elliott Hughes <enh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
i like this partial factorization -- even though there's more stuff to
also come out -- because it's a meaningful chunk of functionality in
its own right, and deserves a name.

i'd rather see a function than a multi-line macro, though.

I prefer functions too, in general but I don't particularly like
the 6-parameter interface (and even less the 4-param one including
two in/out parameters -- it's bad enough that I've done that in
the macro). What did you have in mind?

The problem with the 4-parameter approach

static void
wrap_pattern (char *pattern, size_t *pattern_len,
char const *prefix, char const *suffix)
{
...
}

is that it works fine when we don't have to free the PATTERN,
but if anyone ever calls it with a malloc'd PATTERN, it will leak.

return char*, and -- at the risk of more nitpickery -- expect the user to call strlen if they need to know how long the pattern is?

"static char* wrap_pattern(const char* pattern, const char* prefix, const char* suffix)" seems reasonable to me.

or rename search.c as search.cpp and use std::string. all this pretending a char* is a string is *so* 1970s. (see also the comment starting "The PCRE interface doesn't allow NUL bytes in the pattern..." in the same file.)

--
http://www.jessies.org/~enh/






...



Privacy