Re: [Arpix-devel] Replacing fileinfo

[Simo S. <sim...@ti...>]

Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> 
> On 10 Feb 2001 02:23:14 +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09 Feb 2001 15:42:05 +0100, Hongli Lai wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:11:53 Giovanni Corriga wrote:
> > > > > I'm quite not satisfied by the way the info about the archive content is
> > > > > manipulated (a GList holding a fileinfo struct). I was thinking to
> > > > > replace it with a custom list (a FiList) derived from the standard
> > > > > GList.
> > > > > I have written some code for you to review. Please note that I haven't
> > > > > even tried to compile it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see why it is neccesary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just good OOP. It is not really necessary - just an itch that needs to
> > > be scratched. ;-)
> > >
> >
> > I've not seen any difference or advancement against a standard GList,
> > what's the point?
> > You may add a function to misc if you want other manipulation function
> > above the standard provided one.
> > Can you explain exactly where your implementation has it's strenght and
> > why it so better than standard Glist (Isn't Filist a simple typedef?
> > I've not seen a different structure)
> >
> 
> As I said, it is not necessary. We can go on using the fileinfo struct.
> I simply thought that
> 
>     filist_get_size(fi);
> 
> was easier to understand than
> 
>     (((fileinfo *)(list->data))->size);
> 
> It was just a proposal, but since it seems you don't like it, I will
> drop it.
> 

It's not that we do not like it, is that it is not necessary to change
the name of a structure to add functions.
Simply do this:

#define g_list_get_data_size(list) (((fileinfo *)(list->data))->size);

the GList is preserved and a more clear way to get the size is addressed
the same way. ;)
Feel free to add this kind of #define if they result in cleaner and more
readable code.

Bye,
Simo.

-- 
sim...@ti...
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/9757