On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:26:21 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <barbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:42 AM, David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 10:12:09 -0200 Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
> > <barbi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Daniel Juyung Seo
> >> <seojuyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Dear all, this is Daniel Juyung Seo.
> >> >
> >> > I propose EFL_SAFE_FREE macro for efl.
> >> > It looks like:
> >> >
> >> > # define EFL_SAFE_FREE(_h, _fn) do { if (_h) { _fn((void*)_h);
> >> > _h = NULL; } } while (0)
> >> >
> >> > As I have been using ELM_SAFE_FREE for months, I found out that
> >> > this macro is quite useful in terms of code readability, reducing
> >> > human mistakes, and using much smaller number of lines with the
> >> > same functionality.
> >> >
> >> > Enlightenment has
> >> > # define E_FREE_FUNC(_h, _fn) do { if (_h) { _fn((void*)_h); _h =
> >> > NULL; } } while (0)
> >> >
> >> > Elementary has
> >> > #define ELM_SAFE_FREE(_h, _fn) do { if (_h) { _fn((void*)_h); _h
> >> > = NULL; } } while (0)
> >> >
> >> > So why not efl?
> >> >
> >> > By using EFL_SAFE_FREE, this (Old) code will reborn as a (New)
> >> > code. 5 lines down to 1 line.
> >> > (Old)
> >> > if (svr->until_deletion)
> >> > {
> >> > ecore_timer_del(svr->until_deletion);
> >> > svr->until_deletion = NULL;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > (New)
> >> > EFL_SAFE_FREE(svr->until_deletion, ecore_timer_del);
> >>
> >> bad name as there is nothing save in it.
> >>
> >> EINA_FREE_AND_NULL(ptr, freefunc) would be more descriptive, code
> >> is the same. Or:
> >>
> >> EINA_FREE_AND_NULL(ptr) // does free()
> >> EINA_DISPOSE_AND_NULL(ptr, disposefunc) // generic version
> >>
> >> I'm not a native speaker, eventually there is a better name for the
> >> second one.
> >
> > Safe, as in "this is the safe way to do it", nothing to do with
> > saving things.
>
> i know, but what is safe in it? Because it checks for null before
> calling the function? If you take libc "free()" this is not required,
> so it's no big deal. The set to NULL is also something not always
> desired, if you're cleaning up a local variable all tools
> (gcc/clang/coverity) will report dead assignment. Tools won't report
> but it's also not needed (or desired) if you clean a member of a
> struct that is also being deleted.
I wasn't commenting on it's safety, just on the difference between the
words 'safe' and 'save', since you pointed out you are not a native
English speaker. So your statement "there is nothing save in it" was
not relevant if you meant "there is nothing saved in it". Looks like
you meant "there is nothing safe in it".
Should be only one of these macros, and it should be at the EINA level,
so every one can use it. Are we stuck with existing API here though?
How about EINA_NUKE_FROM_ORBIT, it's the only safe way. B-)
--
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sponsored by Intel(R) XDK Develop, test and display web and hybrid apps with a single code base. Download it for free now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=111408631&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
