On 9/8/24 22:26, Michael Tokarev wrote:
Why do you think this is an improvement?It just feels more natural, so to say.What was wrong with the function pointers?Not exactly wrong. It just hurts my eyes when I see an address is taken of a function marked `inline`
I'm certainly happy to fix that!
(though I understand well this keyword is just a hint and the compiler is free to omit inlining). Also the typedefs are a bit ugly.
I think the macro is uglier than the typedef. r~
