On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 19:42 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > Hi, > I promised to fix up the vector api, and there's a design decision > which needs to be made (incidentally, if we were in C++ land, we wouldn't > have to chose, as the right thing just happens).
> Option1 is more easy to implement. Option2 requires a little nested > structure jiggery pokery to retain type safety. I like option 2 from a writer perspective, but i don't know how much of a pain in the ass it is for you. > > So which has the more annoying downside, or alternatively, the more > satisfactory upside? > > Another option, is whether the type and allocation parameters of the > API calls are themselves parenthesized into a single macro argument, > as in > VEC_append ((tree,gc),v,t) > Would this be a suitable visual aid to make those stand out as > 'not expressions'? (In C++ land, you'd write it as > 'VEC_append<tree,gc> (v,t)', if you really wanted a template-id-expr. > Mostly you'd just let template deduction DTRT and have a plain > 'VEC_append (v,t)' This is just the push we need to move to C++. :) > ) > > comments? > > nathan >
