develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2014

TypeMEMBER vs TYPE_MEMBER

Thread Next
From:
Father Chrysostomos
Date:
September 13, 2014 04:56
Subject:
TypeMEMBER vs TYPE_MEMBER
Message ID:
20140913045625.32548.qmail@lists-nntp.develooper.com
For the most part, we have been using TypeMEMBER-style macros:

CvGV
CopFILE
PmopSTASH
StashHANDLER

etc.

For ops, we have two conventions:

OP_SIBLING

OpREFCNT_inc/dec
OpSLOT
OpSLAB

You can see that OP_SIBLING is the odd one out.

These are older, but they are not really member access macros, though
maybe I'm stretching facts a bit:

OP_GIMME etc.
OP_REFCNT_INIT _LOCK etc.
OP_NAME
OP_DESC
OP_CLASS
OP_TYPE_IS etc.
OP_CHECK_MUTEX_*

When I see something named OpSIBLING, because that convention is
used everything I know that it is a member access.  Whereas with
OP_SIBLING, it could be an op type named 'sibling', or a function-like
macro for 'siblinging' the op.

I think it would be best to change it to OpSIBLING since it has not
been in a stable release yet.  And follow that convention from now on.
Any objections?


Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About