On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote:
> As I mentioned in my previous patch, we currently have TYPE_{MIN,MAX}_VALUES
> for numeric types and TYPE_{MIN,MAX}VAL for type-agnostic access.
>
> This patch renames the latter to TYPE_{MIN,MAX}VAL_RAW, matching
> TYPE_VALUES_RAW, which had a similar problem.
>
> While renaming the macros, I reordered them in tree.h to be grouped by the
> underlying field. I think that makes more sense here, as the only case when
> grouping as min/max makes most sense is for the numeric types. And mostly
> when looking at this, I want to discover what things might use this field.
>
> Because of that reordering, I'm hesitant to apply the obvious rule. I'd
> appreciate review. thanks.
Looks good but now we have TYPE_MAX_VALUE and TYPE_MAXVAL_RAW.
Why's that not TYPE_MAX_VALUE_RAW?
Ok with some more renaming.
Thanks,
Richard.
> (This patch is not dependent on the TYPE_METHODS removal patch)
>
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
