From: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
To: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/9] QMP: First half of the new argument checking code
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:52:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3bpbt32rt.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100602105351.5a197e75@redhat.com> (Luiz Capitulino's message of "Wed, 2 Jun 2010 10:53:51 -0300")
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:22:40 +0200
> Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Higher order functions rock. But C is too static and limited for
>> elegant use of higher order functions. Means to construct loops are
>> usually more convenient to use, and yield more readable code.
>>
>> I find the use of qdict_iter() here quite tortuous: you define a
>> separate iterator function, which you can't put next to its use. You
>> need to jump back and forth between the two places to understand what
>> the loop does. You define a special data structure just to pass
>> arguments and results through qdict_iter().
>>
>> Let me try to sketch the alternative:
>>
>> static int qmp_check_client_args(const mon_cmd_t *cmd, QDict *client_args)
>> {
>> QDict *cmd_args;
>> int res = 0, skip = 0;
>> QDictEntry *ent;
>>
>> cmd_args = qdict_from_args_type(cmd->args_type);
>>
>> for (ent = qdict_first_entry(cmd_args); ent; ent = qdict_next_entry(ent) {
>
> I thought about doing something similar a while ago, but I dislike it for
> two reasons:
>
> 1. I don't think the notion of 'first' and 'next' apply for dicts. One may
> argue that the iterator has the same issue, but it's implicit
Does the dirt under the carpet exist when nobody looks?
Iterating over an unordered collection necessarily creates an order
where none was before. It's the nature of iteration. Dressing it up as
iterator + function argument doesn't change the basic fact[*].
> 2. QDictEntry shouldn't be part of the public interface, we should be
> using forward declaration there
No problem, just add qdict_ent_key() and qdict_ent_value(), and use them
instead of operator ->.
> (although I'm not sure whether this is
> possible with a typedef)
In qdict.h: typedef struct QDictEntry QDictEntry;
In qdict.c: struct QDictEntry { ... };
> I think having qdict_foreach() will improve things already.
I doubt it, but try and see :)
[*] Unless the iterator gets fancy and calls the function argument
concurrently. Hardly an option in primitive old C.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-02 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-01 20:41 [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/9]: QMP: Replace client argument checker Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/9] QDict: Introduce qdict_get_try_bool() Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 6:35 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 13:53 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/9] Monitor: handle optional '-' arg as a bool Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/9] QMP: First half of the new argument checking code Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 6:59 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 13:53 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-03 7:35 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 7:22 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 13:53 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 14:52 ` Markus Armbruster [this message]
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/9] QMP: Second " Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 7:31 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 13:54 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 14:41 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-18 20:30 ` [Qemu-devel] Handling the O-type Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-21 8:12 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-21 15:36 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-21 16:50 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 5/9] QMP: Drop old client argument checker Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/9] QMP: check_opts(): Minor cleanup Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 7/9] QError: Introduce QERR_QMP_BAD_INPUT_OBJECT_MEMBER Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 7:34 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 8/9] QMP: Introduce qmp_check_input_obj() Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 7:39 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-02 13:55 ` Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 14:42 ` Markus Armbruster
2010-06-01 20:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 9/9] QMP: Drop old input object checking code Luiz Capitulino
2010-06-02 7:41 ` [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/9]: QMP: Replace client argument checker Markus Armbruster
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3bpbt32rt.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org \
--to=armbru@redhat.com \
--cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=lcapitulino@redhat.com \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.