From: Allin C. <cot...@wf...> - 2007-11-27 01:49:44
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > Allin Cottrell wrote: > > > Hans has put me right: I had thought of TERM_TABLE entries as constants but > > I was wrong. However, it seems to me easier to add a function pointer at > > the end of the table: that way no *.trm code needs to be touched unless the > > term wants to offer a scale factor. > > Same difference. Adding a variable at the end of the struct has > the same net effect, and the benefit of being less risky. An > unsupported variable automatically defaults to zero, but an > unsupported function defaults to an invalid function pointer, > which is generally unsafe to use. I thought things were set up so that an unsupported function defaults to a null pointer (and my proposed code tests for that). Is that incorrect? On the other hand, having the scale variable default to zero would not be good at all -- it should really default to 1, though I suppose one could work around a broken default of 0. Allin Cottrell |