Dave Swegen wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the code generated could be
> reduced quite substantially in size by using a generic linked list
> struct, rather than one for each option.
>
> So instead of
>
> struct timer_list
> {
> int timer_arg;
> char *timer_orig;
> struct timer_list * next;
> };
>
> you could simply do
>
> struct list
> {
> int arg;
> char *orig;
> struct list *next;
> }
>
> Or is there some subtle reason I have missed for doing it this way?
actually you're pretty right! However I'd still need a different list
for each type (one for int, one for double, etc.).
I'll work on this issue
thanks
Lorenzo
--
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Lorenzo Bettini ICQ# lbetto, 16080134 |
| PhD in Computer Science |
| Dip. Sistemi e Informatica, Univ. di Firenze |
| Florence - Italy (GNU/Linux User # 158233) |
| Home Page : http://www.lorenzobettini.it |
| http://music.dsi.unifi.it XKlaim language |
| http://www.purplesucker.com Deep Purple Cover Band |
| http://www.gnu.org/software/src-highlite |
| http://www.gnu.org/software/gengetopt |
| http://www.lorenzobettini.it/software/gengen |
| http://www.lorenzobettini.it/software/doublecpp |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
Help-gengetopt mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gengetopt
