Re: [TCLCORE] Proposed addition of a new Tcl_Obj internal rep field for pointer+size

[<apn...@ya...>]

+1 to Brian’s point. Applies to extensions as well. At the very least I hesitate to include it in this TIP as it would make it far more controversial in my opinion.

 

TIP coming up…

 

From: Brian Griffin <bri...@ea...> 
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 5:02 AM
To: Jan Nijtmans <jan...@gm...>
Cc: apn...@ya...; tcl...@li...
Subject: Re: [TCLCORE] Proposed addition of a new Tcl_Obj internal rep field for pointer+size

 

I think the number of changes that you had to make in the core is a good example why this is not a good idea anywhere outside of a major version release, unfortunately. Although, I do applaud the approach to simplify coding.  

 

-Brian 

(from mobile device)





On Dec 1, 2024, at 15:03, Jan Nijtmans <jan...@gm... <mailto:jan...@gm...> > wrote:

 

Op zo 1 dec 2024 om 15:50 schreef apnmbx-public--- via Tcl-Core:

I would therefore like to add the following additional field to the Tcl_ObjIntenalRep union

 

struct {

   void *ptr;

   Tcl_Size size;

} ptrAndSize;

 

We could also take the opportunity to simplify things. How about

adding anonymous structures to the union:

    struct {

        void *ptr;

        void *ptr2;

    };

    struct {

        Tcl_Size size;

        Tcl_Size size2;

    };

That would enable us to write "size2" in stead of "ptrAndSize.size2", and

also "ptr" in stead of "twoPtrValue.ptr1". It would simplty a lot

lines of code, making it more readable:

      <https://core.tcl-lang.org/tcl/info/bf304129948c281a>

 

 Regards,

        Jan Nijtmans

 

_______________________________________________
Tcl-Core mailing list
Tcl...@li... <mailto:Tcl...@li...> 
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcl-core