On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 16:33 +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Haller <thal...@redhat.com> wrote: > > It's my personal annoyance with the verboseness of: > > > > > > NM_TYPE_NAME_GET_PRIVATE (self)->my_field > > nm_type_name_get_instance_private (self)->my_field > > > > vs. > > > > self->priv->my_field > > > > > > > > Bonus point: it's easier in gdb/debugger. > > I personally also prefer to waste a pointer per object and have > self->priv, truth be told, even if the new get_instance_private () > macros are pointer arithmetic only.
I'm personally fine with self->priv, but ISTR the last time this came up Pavel had some objections to it based around type-safety I think? GET_PRIVATE() does type-checking, while of course direct pointer access doesn't. Or something like that. But of course if GET_PRIVATE() returns NULL and we dereference that to get the private data anyway, it'll still crash just like self->priv on a bogus pointer. In any case, I'm fine with moving in that direction, but we should dig up what Pavel's objection was just for reference. Dan _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
