> Le 19 mai 2019 à 13:05, Bruno Haible <[email protected]> a écrit :
>
> Hi Akim,
>
>>>> +static const char *const backup_docs[] =
>>>> +{
>>>> + N_("never make backups (even if --backup is given)"),
>>>> + N_("make numbered backups"),
>>>> + N_("numbered if numbered backups exist, simple otherwise"),
>>>> + N_("always make simple backups"),
>>>> + NULL
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const enum backup_type backup_doc_vals[] =
>>>> +{
>>>> + no_backups,
>>>> + simple_backups,
>>>> + numbered_existing_backups,
>>>> + numbered_backups
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> This is hard to maintain. Better put things next to each other that
>>> belong together. Namely, can you put the enum value and each docstring
>>> into a single struct?
>>>
>>> { no_backups, N_("never make backups (even if --backup is given)") },
>>> { simple_backups, N_("make numbered backups") },
>>> { numbered_existing_backups, N_("numbered if numbered backups exist,
>>> simple otherwise") },
>>> { numbered_backups, N_("always make simple backups") },
>>
>> Yes, of course, it would be nicer, but argmatch does not force the size of
>> the values. And I didn't want to force the user to provide an lvalue for
>> each single value. So I'm using the same approach as the rest of argmatch:
>> pass a pointer to an array, and the size of the data.
>>
>> We can provide another type restricted to ints for this common case though.
>
> I can't really follow what you wrote here.
>
> What I mean is that any facility where the programmer has to write two arrays
> filled with items that belong together, in a 1:1 correspondence, is
> ill-designed.
> It is just too easy to update one of the arrays and forget about the other
> one.
I am saying that the values (those in backup_doc_vals for instance) are not
required to be ints. I'm saying that in the example above backup_doc_vals are
enums, but they could be floats, structs, chars, whatever. So there cannot be
a single type that would make it possible to write
>>> { no_backups, N_("never make backups (even if --backup is given)") },
>>> { simple_backups, N_("make numbered backups") },
>>> { numbered_existing_backups, N_("numbered if numbered backups exist,
>>> simple otherwise") },
>>> { numbered_backups, N_("always make simple backups") },
Or are you suggesting that users should define their own type. Or do you mean
to provide a macro to instantiate such a type given a data type? Or are you
suggesting to restrict to a single size data type?
