Closed kblomqvist closed 11 years ago
The return value was thought more like a sucess/error code. If there is any error in the initialization, we can return NULL
. But, in this case, it is not needed because this function only makes the struct
initialization. Normally, an int
is used for the return value.
Concerning the first argument, normally I instantiate new objects in C with this type of structure: first declaring the struct
inside a function, then using the memory address of the struct
to call methods. Example:
void examp_func(void) {
ClassName object;
/* the constructor can have other names like: classname_init or classname_create */
classname_new(&object);
classname_set_value(&object, 3);
return;
}
Its only a matter of coding style. IMO, it is more important to initialize all the structs
in the same way. If you feel the other style is better, then lets change it :)
Proposed solution for the function:
int tokens_new(Tokens *ts, int argc, char **argv) {
struct Tokens update = {argc, argv, 0, argv[0]};
(*ts) = update;
return 0;
}
I agree that all structs
should be initialized similarly. But, I don't understand why to use this "first declaring the struct inside a function" way of initialization within foo_new()
. I would like to revert this as it was previously:
Tokens tokens_new(int argc, char **argv) {
Tokens ts = {argc, argv, 0, argv[0]};
return ts;
}
Tokens ts = tokens_new(argc, argv);
This way Token initialization looks like the use of new
keyword in C++ and I feel it more convenient to use in this way. If the Token has to be reset later there could be a function:
Tokens* tokens_reset(Tokens *ts, int argc, char **argv) {
(*ts) = tokens_new(argc, argv);
return ts;
}
Just realized that
Tokens* tokens_new()
wasn't just a rename fromTokens tokens_create()
... @ffunenga I'm not sure why do we added that extra param of Tokens itself in to the argument list of the function, and why do we return a pointer:If an update function is needed then let's add it separately.