> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October 2022 18.48
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 04:28:58PM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 3:48 PM Bruce Richardson
> > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 09:37:02AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> > > > Add the boolean type RTE_TEL_BOOL_VAL for values in arrays and
> dicts.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
[...]
> > > > +/* Appends a boolean into the JSON array in the provided buffer.
> */
> > > > +static inline int
> > > > +rte_tel_json_add_array_bool(char *buf, const int len, const int
> used,
> > > > + bool val)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret, end = used - 1; /* strip off final delimiter */
> > > > + if (used <= 2) /* assume empty, since minimum is '[]' */
> > > > + return __json_snprintf(buf, len, "[%s]",
> > > > + val ? "true" : "false");
> > > > +
> > > > + ret = __json_snprintf(buf + end, len - end, ",%s]",
> > > > + val ? "true" : "false");
> > >
> > > Wonder if it's worthwhile doing a macro for this conditional, since
> the
> > > same ternary-operator snippet appears 4 times in this code.
> >
> > Err, naming it would be hard and I don't see for now how we could
> reuse it.
> >
> Yes, and I see Morten has objected from a readability perspective, so
> keeping as-is is fine.
>
> One final suggestion though might be to have an array with the strings
> as so:
>
> const char *bool_str[2] = { "false", "true" };
>
> and then in the code use "bool_str[val]" in place of ternary operator.
I don't consider that more readable than the original.
> (From a quick check with godbolt is looks like bool params are clamped
> to 0
> or 1 on function call, but if we want to be paranoid, we can lookup
> based
> on [!!val])
>
> However, ok to keep code as-is for this too.
Thank you, yes, please.
>
> /Bruce
