Re: user-defined function & string file name

[Juergen W. <wie...@fr...>]

Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> Juergen Wieferink wrote:
> > Enabling strings in this special case would be to define "STRING"
> > and to extend the union within "struct value" by "string_val".  This
> > itself should not lead to additional code in the executable.
>
> That would only be true if we were certain that all usages of the union
> are already fully decoded, i.e. the switch(value.type) all have cases
> for each of the allowed values, and there are no if(value.type == INTGR)
> or similar.  That's not quite true right now, even though we're
> surprisingly close to that goal.

I don't understand this, and I feel really should.  Is there really
a problem with "if (value.type == INTGR)", or would it be the "else"
part that makes problems?

But I have to admit that it is quite inelegant to do what I
proposed.  The function I gave the not completely suitable name
"is_dummy_func()" should also return a "char*", which is NULL if the
expression is to be interpreted as a function.


Juergen