Re: Getting rid of varbrace

[Daniel J. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi Sam,

> we need either a comment or a thorough purge.
> I favor the latter because I want the CLISP sources to _look_ like
> regular C.

Me too. Though I got the impression from our discussions last year
that a full purge - due to the massive commit this would cause - is
not wanted. That's why I went the `#define var` way.


> Note that the purge can be done with a perl one-liner.

Yes, but bear in mind that the purge is only the first step.  Removing
var causes problems.  In the second patch of the original mail I only
corrected those which caused compile errors for my configuration.
There are possibly many more of them when looking through all the
code.  Examples:

A declaration cannot immediately follow an label. There are LOTS of
those errors. Example:

label:
  var type name;

I solved this like so:

label:;
  var type name;


> No, please add braces instead.

This might work in some cases, but most of the affected code is highly
"unstructured". If I could easily add braces without rewritting it,
then there wouldn't be labels and gotos but if, while and friends.

I tried to find more instances of those with:

find src -type f -name '*.d' -exec \
  pcregrep -MHno \
    '[[:alnum:]]+:([^:;{]|\n)*?var([^;]|\n)*+;' '{}' ';' \
    2>/dev/null \
  | sed 's_^src/_\x0src/_g' \
  | grep -z -v -F ': */' \
  | less

But this shows many false positives...


Another issue is conflicting definitions of the same variable. Example:

var type1 foo;
// some code
var type2 foo;

This is solved by renaming one of them, if possible. In two places, I
manually added braces (like varbrace would've done), specifically in
src/intlog.d, function I_logcount_I, the variables with the name (as
written in the source code) "x16". The issue is that "x16" might be
"#define" to something else, and I didn't exactly understood why and
when.


> Please either make a separate patch or tell me where the
unused var is.

I attached a patch with the small change (including an entry in the
changelog, just to be sure ;) )


> I will let Bruno decide on this.

Bruno, what do you think?