Quoting Philip Hazel: >>> Comments welcome, especially "this is soo cool" style. :) >> This is sooooo cool! :) > I have to admit that my gut feeling doesn't like this because it is > adding more code and complication, just to avoid using macros for > variable names.
Using macros to map names to numbers seemed always a little cumbersome to me. And it does not work in filter files. We discussed this a while ago (when you said you don't like named variables because they are inefficient :). As for code complexity: Sure, the new code makes changes in central places, which is always dangerous, but I think it is pretty straightforward, easy to read and to validate. To be honest, I even thought about moving the existing numbered variables to the same storage as the named ones (which would reduce code complexity :), but then it seemed too revolutionary for now... I doubt anybody would notice a performance hit, though, especially when we'd use a binary tree. > But then I come from the "if it isn't written in > assembler and uses every last bit, it's too expensive" school of > thought, having been writing code for way too long. So I'll wait to see > what other reactions there on this list. Quite fair. -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
