From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15495 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2002 15:35:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15427 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2002 15:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2002 15:35:43 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155843EC8; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:35:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C96094E.8090407@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 07:35:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Batons? Was: RFC: C/C++ preprocessor macro support for GDB References: <20020317062306.CC96D5E9DE@zwingli.cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 [list pruned] Jim, assuming I understand the intent correctly, I'm just wondering about the use of the word baton (I've seen it before). > + static void scan (struct macro_buffer *dest, > + struct macro_buffer *src, > + struct macro_name_list *no_loop, > + macro_lookup_ftype *lookup_func, > + void *lookup_baton); I understand lookup_baton to be an object and lookup_func to be the method that applies to that object. If C was OO, the need to pass both wouldn't exist. I think you're trying to convey the idea that the baton is untouched as it is passed along. For me, the word baton is something that gets handed off, never to be seen again - as in a relay. The only other image is being thumped over the head with one. Adopting common naming conventions is a good thing. I'm just wondering if baton is the right name. enjoy, Andrew