On 03/26/2012 02:44 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-26 21:39, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 03/26/2012 02:37 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-03-26 21:35, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Since this is an easily refactorable thing to look at later, I think
we should
start with extracting the types.
My worry is that those three refactorings set bad examples for others.
So I'd like to avoid such back and forth if possible.
I'm not really worried about it. It's so easier to refactor this
later. Why rush it now?
You rush changing the current layout, not me. :)
No, I'm trying to do incremental changes without boiling the ocean in
the process.
I think we all are in violent agreement about where we want to end up
(as opaque types as possible). I don't want to hold back additional
refactoring on doing this right (and it's not just a matter of
malloc/free).
Either I'm missing it in the code shuffling, or it's not part of this
series: Can you point out where more that a forward reference and
malloc/free is needed?
Inheritance is the other nasty case.
To inherit from a type, you need to have the type definition. This is a pretty
common problem with Object systems and the typical solution is PIMPL[1].
So maybe that's the right thing to do here, but that would have a significant
affect on the code. That's what I mean by rushing how to handle this. There
are multiple possible solutions and they need to be considered.
The problem is purely aesthetic too, so I don't see a rush to fix it.
[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PimplIdiom
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Jan
