From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15568 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2012 14:35:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 14694 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2012 14:34:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:34:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qASEYmt4011960 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:34:48 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qASEYlrd025494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:34:47 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: make thread_list static References: <87y5hmdhl0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50B5D8EF.1020400@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:35:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <50B5D8EF.1020400@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:27:11 +0000") Message-ID: <877gp5bxtk.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00809.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> This was after getting sick of writing callback-style iterators Pedro> in the itsets run-control work, and introducing the macro there Pedro> first. This isn't different from ALL_OBJFILES and several other Pedro> similar macros in the tree (which I realize from this that you'd Pedro> rather remove). We could switch to callback-style before pushing Pedro> those patches in, but, IMO, the convenience and readability of Pedro> the resulting code trumps the implementation detail exposure Pedro> detail. Ok. I won't put it in. FWIW -- I am not really a fan of the callback style. It is too verbose, usually requiring a new struct and marshalling and unmarshalling, which means more places to forget something. But, I'm also not a fan of the ALL_* macro approach. I think it obscures the code. On the whole I'd prefer iterator objects along the lines of dictionary.h. These are a mild pain since in C the iterator object has to be fully visible, but some discipline and/or field-uglification approaches can deal with that adequately. Tom