lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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.
Explicitly.

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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  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