Re: The next step in a table driven client

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > a pointer to this struct gets added to the command descriptor.
> > The option processing routine takes this ptr as an argument, instead
> > of the addresses of each of the fields. It is trivial and gets me
> > closer to where I want to go, even if the destination still has haze.
>
> -0 on this approach.
>
> The hash table has longer term growth and seems just as simple.

I think I'm agnostic on the question of hash vs struct...

One nice thing about the struct is that it spells out which things are
common to all commands -- those are the fields in the struct.

On the other hand, you have to keep adding fields. And some things
are common to only a subset of commands, so what's the threshold for
inclusion in the struct?...

Hmm. Yes, I see what you mean, Greg. I guess I've swung around to
the hash table p.o.v., then (separate from the filename/dirname hash,
of course).

Bruce, any objections? Is there some reason to prefer the struct
approach, that we're missing?

-K
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006