On 07/10/2009 01:57 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Tsantilas Christos wrote:
>> Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2009 12:06 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>> ** Please make fqdncache_entry / ipcache_entry public classes instead
>>>> of functional structs. Some gcc complain and doxygen won't document
>>>> their functions properly.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I am not sure what you mean. What is a "functional struct"? Do
>>> you want us to replace "struct fqdncache_entry" with "class
>>> fqdncache_entry" and add "public:"?
>>>
>>> No objections, of course, just wanted to minimize merging headaches by
>>> keeping out-of-scope changes to the minimum...
>>>
>> I did not touch it. The struct used in many places inside squid3
>>
>
> Please do change.
Let's compromise and change it in a separate patch because the change
you are requesting is unrelated to the patch scope.
> The rest of the code fails to prefix the names with "struct" the typedef
> made that possible.
>
> Using class and public: is the C++ upgrade equivalent to the typedef and
> allows functions/methods inside the struct where I suspect the typedef
> did not.
I am not sure that is a valid statement. IIRC, "struct" and "class" are
"equal" citizens in C++ as far as C++ rules are concerned. One is not an
upgrade of the other.
Typedefs for structs are C legacy that are not needed (and harmful!) in
C++ code. IIRC, I have removed them in this patch to make new method
definitions look "normal".
Cheers,
Alex.
Received on Fri Jul 10 2009 - 14:23:26 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jul 11 2009 - 12:00:04 MDT