On Thursday, April 21, 2016 04:01:17 PM Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 01:06:38 PM Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Marcelo Araujo wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2016-04-20 0:16 GMT+08:00 John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 04:46:13 AM Marcelo Araujo wrote:
> >>>>> Author: araujo
> >>>>> Date: Tue Apr 19 04:46:13 2016
> >>>>> New Revision: 298247
> >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/298247
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Log:
> >>>>> Remove redundant parenthesis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Submitted by: pfg
> >>>>> MFC after: 2 weeks.
> >>
> >> I don't realling like churnging to the nonstandard nitems(). Use
> >> of the nonstandard <sys/param.h> is bad enough.
> >
> > I think it's not that bad from a readability standpoint. Other languages
> > have fairly concise syntax for 'for-each' loops and this provides a
> > closer variant of that for statically sized arrays. TAILQ_FOREACH() is
> > still nicer of course. One could imagine doing some sort of
> > ARRAY_FOREACH() that was:
>
> Ugh, I really realling (sic) don't like the FOREACH macros. The FOREACH
> macros add syntactic salt. The queue macros were bad enough before they
> had FOREACH. Arrays don't start with such nastiness.
>
> > #define ARRAY_FOREACH(p, array) \
> > for (size_t __i = 0, (p) = &(array)[0]; __i < nitems((array)); __i++,
> > (p)++)
>
> This only works in the not very usual case of a simple loop from the start
> to the end. Even the name EACH becomes wrong if the range is anything else.
> For full nastiness, add a few hundred FORFOO macros to handle multi-
> dimensional arrays with different access methods, array slices, sentinels
> and other terminating conditions, etc.
Actually, combined with break this is a common case. The fairly widespread
use of the queue FOREACH macros (and most of the uses of nitems() in the
tree) are a testament to this.
> > Perhaps better is this:
> >
> > #define ARRAY_FOREACH(p, array) \
> > for ((p) = &(array)[0]; (p) < &(array)[nitems((array))]; (p)++)
> >
> > (No need for __i)
>
> But hiding the indexes forces the old C programming idiom of using
> pointers for everything. A mere few hundred FORFOO macros won't do.
> For just 1-dimensional FOREACH, you need 3 versions to expose p, i or
> both p and i.
If someone wanted 'i' they could maintain it on their own through the loop.
In practice, 'foreach' is a common idiom in other languages and is used to
mean 'for each item in container'. The 'short' syntax always implies a full
iteration (though you could use break to bail early). For example, in
python:
for item in list:
# do stuff
Or in C++11:
for (p : array) {
}
In C++11 I think this only works for std::array rather than a plain C
array, though compared to a fixed-size array for which nitems() works,
std::array is equivalent. Both of these work for dynamically sized
containers for which our queue macros are the equivalent.
--
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
