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~

Reply via email to