Toni, > When I first looked at Judy, the most frustrating issues I had were > dealing with the preprocessor macros and the lack of type safety in > the use of (void*).
I hear you... At least, I think so. I'm curious what you would use instead of generic pointers. I guess for Judy array pointers, you would want a declared type for Judy1, JudyL, or JudySL? This seems reasonable to me. But what about JudyL and JudySL value-word (Word_t *) pointers? How can the library be any more specific about those, since the definition of what goes into the value word is up to the caller? > A secondary issue is the error handling which needs to be a single > check on each function return - personally, I am not a fan of > returning error codes via arguments and prefer to just have a FALSE or > NULL return from the function directly. OK, but what do you do with something like JudyLGet() where NULL means not found, otherwise any other value could (at least theoretically) be a valid address. I'm trying to recall if we had the functions return -1 (all 1's) for an error... Yes, PPJERR. So doesn't this meet your needs? Thanks, Alan Silverstein ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Judy-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/judy-devel
