Before:
LFSR_ATTR(RM(SUBMASK(REG)), 0, BUF("hi", 2))
Now:
LFSR_ATTR(
LFSR_TAG_RM | LFSR_TAG_SUBMASK | LFSR_TAG_REG, 0,
LFSR_DATA_BUF("hi", 2))
Yes, it's more verbose now.
But there were a couple reasons for dropping the idea:
- The implicit prefixing is a bit magical, and not really all that
common in C code. It would likely confuse new users on first read.
- The implicitly prefixing macros did not play will with macro expansion
rules.
In particular, because the nested not-yet-prefixed macros aren't
really macros, they aren't expanded as a part of argument prescan.
This led to surprising compile-time errors, and prevented recursive
attr-lists (which may be useful for shrubs).
- Implicit prefixes is not very C-like, and in particular it gets in the
way of sed/grep operations on source files.
- RM(SUBMASK(REG)) for combining tags is (IMO) ugly, compared to
LFSR_TAG_RM | LFSR_TAG_SUBMASK | LFSR_TAG_REG, even if the latter
requires more typing.
- Sometimes you need runtime-dependent TAG/DATA values, which implicit
prefixing gets in the way of. The LFSR_TAG_TAG(tag)/
LFSR_DATA_DATA(tag) backdoors worked around this, but they are even
more magical, and added noise to a not-actually-all-that-uncommon use
case.
And it's really not _that_ much extra effort to write out the prefixes
everywhere.
lfs.c:
lines bytes
before: 16894 537171
after: 16907 (+0.1%) 538340 (+0.2%)
tests/*.toml:
lines bytes
before: 53306 1811035
after: 54517 (+2.3%) 1851006 (+2.2%)
qadte came in quite handy again for refactoring the tests without
completely losing my sanity.
Christopher Haster
748bca0b61