[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [IDEA+RFC] Possible solution for min()/max() war

On Fri, 24 Aug 2001, Brad Chapman wrote:

> - make everyone use the new macros (some people are thinking :P)
> - make everyone use #ifdef blocks with a config option (you think it's :P)
> - make min()/max() typeof() wrappers for a switch-style stack of comparison
> functions which work on the various types, i.e:
> __u8 minimum = min(one, two) -> __u8 minimum = __u8_min(one, two)
> (this may be too complex and is probably :P)

> - make min()/max() inline functions, cast things to void, and use memcmp()
> (this might almost be reasonable, but is probably also :P)
> - stay with the old-style macros (:P, :P, :P)
> What do you think, sir?

Use different inline functions for signed and unsigned.

Any scheme trying to imitate polymorphism with use of cpp/
GNU extensions/whatever is missing the point. There is _no_ common
operation to extend on several types. Choice between signed and
unsigned max should be explicit - they are different operations.

Trying to hide that is C++itis of the worst kind - false
polymorphism that hides only one thing: subtle bugs.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.116 / U:1.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site