On Oct 18, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> Yeah, but I see
>
> bu_vls_printf("%V", &vlsarg);
>
> is really the same as
>
> bu_vls_printf("%s", bu_vls_addr(&vlsarg));
>
> no?
Yes, it is the same. Just a shorthand to avoid the function call and a little
typing, which sometimes mattered 20+ years ago.
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tom Browder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If so, I vote for eliminating the %V
>
> Which task I'll be happy to take on.
Great. The sources can be updated now, but you should add removal of %V
support to the CHANGES file for deprecation so we can eliminate the feature.
> If so, I vote for eliminating the %V and improving the name of
> "bu_vls_addr" to something more like "bu_vls_char_buf" so the intent
> is clearer (or just access the vsl_str member directly). And if the
> %V is eliminated, under C99/POSIX does bu_vls_printf have any use?
I really like your suggestion of bu_vls_cstr(). That rename is minimally
impacting.
The bu_vls_printf() function certainly still has use, though, because it will
automatically grow strings being printed into.
Cheers!
Sean
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
BRL-CAD Developer mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/brlcad-devel
