On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 17:48, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>> > - for (t = toskeywords; t->keyword != NULL; t++) {
>> > - if (strcmp(s, t->keyword) == 0) {
>> > - *val = t->val;
>> > - return (1);
>> > - }
>> > - }
>> > + t = bsearch(s, toskeywords, nitems(toskeywords), sizeof(struct
>> > toskeywords), (int (*)(const void *, const void *))strcmp);
>>
>> I don't like the way this is abusing types. In fact, I don't think this
>> even works. Did you test it? A pointer to a struct toskeyword will not
>> have the same value as the keyword member.
>
> The first field of a struct has the same address as the the struct
> itself. Still I consider this bad form and overkill.
This is true, but strcmp expects the value of t->keyword, not its
address. Have I read the code wrong?
