Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses

Andrew Cagney
2003-11-24T19:45:06Z

>> Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:41:36 -0500
>> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
>> >
>> > Sorry, I don't get the rationale for renaming STR* into
>> > DEPRECATED_STR*. Are we going to throw away the code that used
>> > STREQN/STREQ? If not, I don't see any good reasons to do this, as
>> > renaming the macro doesn't get us any closer to the goal of replacing
>> > them with a simple call to the appropriate str* function.
>> >
>> > Could you please explain why the renaming is a good idea?
>
>>
>> Note that I'm renaming the _remaining_ STR*s and not all references.
>
>
> I must be dense today, because I still don't get it.
>
> What is the importance of ``remaining'' in this case? I understand
> that you replaced some of the uses of STR* macros, those that you
> could test on the system(s) you have available to you, with the direct
> call to the str* functions. I can also understand (although I
> basically disagree, see below) why you don't want to replace those
> uses which you cannot test. But why does it make sense to rename
> them? Why not just leave them alone?
>
> What am I missing?

To ensure that future patches don't continue to use these macros.

> I don't think simply replacing the macros with their expansion could
> introduce bugs. If you don't trust your eyes and hands, perhaps
> Emacs's c-macro-expand command (or some other similar automated tool)
> could help.

(it isn't a question of trusing eyes or hands but accepting that humans
are falible). Anyway, so EMACS has an automated tool I'll go through
with that. Expect questions ;-) Do I need to run ETAGS first?

Andrew