On 11/20/12, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/14/2012 08:12 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: >> Diego and I seek your comments on the following (loose) proposal. >> >> >> We propose to provide several function overload sets, as below. >> >> >> dump_pretty >> >> This function overload set provides the bulk of the printing. >> They will use the existing pretty-printer functions in their >> implementation. > > Since this is the one that would be most commonly used, could we > just call it "dump"?
We will almost certainly want to name one of them just dump. We chose to be verbose in this discussion so that we have a clearer idea of what we intend for each. >> dump_raw >> >> This function overload set provides the raw oriented dump, >> e.g. a tuple. >> >> dump_verbose >> >> This function overload set provides the extra details dump. >> >> >> All of these functions come in two forms. >> >> function (FILE *, item_to_dump, formatting) >> function (item_to_dump, formatting) >> >> If the FILE* is not specified, the output is to stderr. The >> formatting argument is optional, with a default suitable to the kind >> of item to dump. > > assuming there aren't any varargs, why not simply move the 'FILE *' > parameter to the end, default it to STDERR, and then only have the one > function... I'm certainly not locked into the old style must-have-FILE > first paradigm. > > Although I guess then you have the issue of default formatting when you > don't have a default FILE... Which I guess is probably more important. > OK , 2 functions is probably better since one is just a wrapper > anyway :-) Yes, when you want to default two different things equally, it makes sense to do the overload. (The current proposal assumes that one does not need to dump a FILE.) -- Lawrence Crowl
