Re: [PATCH 2/7] reg: Split reg_printfW into separate functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> writes:
> +static void __cdecl output_array(const WCHAR *fmt, ...)
> +{
> +    __ms_va_list va_args;
> +
> +    __ms_va_start(va_args, fmt);
> +    output_formatstring(fmt, va_args);
> +    __ms_va_end(va_args);
>  }

That's a strange name, why "array"?

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

[PATCH 2/7] reg: Split reg_printfW into separate functions

[Hugh McMaster]

On Monday, 8 February 2016 20:06:55 +0900, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Hugh McMaster writes:
> > +static void __cdecl output_array(const WCHAR *fmt, ...)
> > +{
> > +    __ms_va_list va_args;
> > +
> > +    __ms_va_start(va_args, fmt);
> > +    output_formatstring(fmt, va_args);
> > +    __ms_va_end(va_args);
> >  }
>
> That's a strange name, why "array"?

Well, we use array syntax for string literals. So it's just for differentiating between string resources (as messages)
and string literals (as arrays).

I also used the name in http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/4335c464c358d15024e76c918ef...
and it slipped past back then!  :-)

I'm happy to change the function name if you have something else in mind.

--
Hugh McMaster

[PATCH 2/7] reg: Split reg_printfW into separate functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> writes:
> On Monday, 8 February 2016 20:06:55 +0900, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > Hugh McMaster writes:
> > > +static void __cdecl output_array(const WCHAR *fmt, ...)
> > > +{
> > > +    __ms_va_list va_args;
> > > +
> > > +    __ms_va_start(va_args, fmt);
> > > +    output_formatstring(fmt, va_args);
> > > +    __ms_va_end(va_args);
> > >  }
> >
> > That's a strange name, why "array"?
>
> Well, we use array syntax for string literals. So it's just for differentiating between string resources (as messages)
> and string literals (as arrays).
>
> I also used the name in http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/4335c464c358d15024e76c918ef...
> and it slipped past back then!  :-)

Right, I probably assumed that you meant the uninstalled programs array
back then, not the string. Of course technically strings are also
arrays, but that's a confusing name. Just name it output_string or
something like that.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org

[PATCH 2/7] reg: Split reg_printfW into separate functions

[Hugh McMaster]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:12:05 +0900, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Hugh McMaster writes:
> > On Monday, 8 February 2016 20:06:55 +0900, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > > Hugh McMaster writes:
> > > > +static void __cdecl output_array(const WCHAR *fmt, ...)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    __ms_va_list va_args;
> > > > +
> > > > +    __ms_va_start(va_args, fmt);
> > > > +    output_formatstring(fmt, va_args);
> > > > +    __ms_va_end(va_args);
> > > >  }
> > >
> > > That's a strange name, why "array"?
> >
> > Well, we use array syntax for string literals. So it's just for differentiating between string resources (as messages)
> > and string literals (as arrays).
> >
> > I also used the name in http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/4335c464c358d15024e76c918ef...
> > and it slipped past back then!  :-)
>
> Right, I probably assumed that you meant the uninstalled programs array
> back then, not the string. Of course technically strings are also
> arrays, but that's a confusing name. Just name it output_string or
> something like that.

I considered output_string, but I thought it might cause confusion. Consider this:

output_message(STRING_INVALID_KEY);  // message as resource string
output_string(pointer to some array of WCHAR, ...) // we pass in a pointer. Why don't we do output_string(STRING_INVALID_KEY)?

So the reference to a string in the function name and in the resource identifier could cause confusion because it looks as though
they should be related. Or that's my reading of it, at least.

Is either output_arraystr or output_strarray suitable?

[PATCH 2/7] reg: Split reg_printfW into separate functions

[Alexandre Julliard]

Hugh McMaster <hugh.mcmaster(a)outlook.com> writes:
> I considered output_string, but I thought it might cause confusion.
> Consider this:
>
> output_message(STRING_INVALID_KEY); // message as resource string
> output_string(pointer to some array of WCHAR, ...) // we pass in a
> pointer. Why don't we do output_string(STRING_INVALID_KEY)?
>
> So the reference to a string in the function name and in the resource
> identifier could cause confusion because it looks as though
> they should be related. Or that's my reading of it, at least.
>
> Is either output_arraystr or output_strarray suitable?

Now it feels like it will output an array of strings...

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard(a)winehq.org