John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 09:35:52PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > > > The attatched patch makes a solution to bug #31566 possible. > > > > It replaces the const char* with a struct string * > > I don't like the idea of doing this extra allocation, copying, > and deallocation if we can avoid it. > > I'm not particularly happy with it either. > > One way, for example, would be to add a new var_* function that > returns the variable name and label together, keeping the string > cached as part of the struct variable. > > I can see that would work. However, I don't like the idea of having the > data and its presentation in the same structure. I think we ought to > start making an effort to keep them apart.
I think that it's better to think of it as a cache rather than a violation of separation of data and presentation. I don't have a better idea. I suspect that in fact this is the wrong place to worry about this separation. To more properly separate data and presentation in such a case, it would make more sense to add a function to add a variable name to a cell in a table, which would internally look at the setting and put the properly formatted name (either as name or label or name+label) int he cell. And then ultimately it would be even better to avoid making this decision at the time of table construction, so that the user could, say, right-click on a particular table and change the setting for a table that has already been output. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
