> > I kind of like the %-escapes, because they provide a compact and legible
> > way to build QObjects. But with so little use, they're hardly earning
> > their keep.
>
> What drives me most insane about them is that they are NOT the same
> escapes as printf(), so the compiler can't help us with type safety, and
> things like PRId64 don't always do what we want. And except for %p for
> injecting nested objects, most of our escapes are just as easy to
> perform with g_strdup_printf() (injecting a string, integer, or
> boolean), or by manual creation of the QDict.
Oh wait. Now I remember where we most used %-escapes and they're actually
much more useful and pervasive than you estimated. See commit 563890c
("libqtest: escape strings in QMP commands, fix leak", 2014-07-01);
they cannot be produced with g_strdup_printf, because %s automatically
escapes strings.
The patch actually fixed a failure in qom-test, if I'm not mistaken, due
to a " appearing in a QOM path.
However, I'm still in favor of limiting % to the testsuite.
Paolo
