Re: roff.c question

[Kristaps Dzonsons <kristaps@bsd.lv>]

On 08/12/2010 02:05, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Kristaps,
>
> Kristaps Dzonsons wrote on Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 04:15:12PM +0100:
>> Ingo wrote:
>
>>> 1) roff_res() should not expand \\* or \\\\*,
>>>     but it should expand \* and \\\*.
>>>
>>> OK for the following patch?
>
>> That's fine by me,
>
> Oh well, the patch was broken, fortunately i notived before
> committing it.  The problem was that it didn't make sure that
> the '*' immediately followed the '\\'.
>
>> but let's please put some roff.7 documentation
>> (and in-line) in place
>
> Actually, that's what made me find the problem.
> Documenting code is often a good debugging strategy.
>
>> regarding this sort of chicanery.
>> It confuses the hell out of me for one!
>
> At some point, i guess we will have to implement proper
> roff copy mode - but not right now, we still have more
> elementary problems to deal with.  At that point, we
> ought to improve roff(7) docs related to .ds and \*.
>
> For now, i suggest to add just one sentence.
>
>
> See below for an updated patch.
> As it is quite different form the previous one,
> i'm not committing it right away,
> but sending it again for review.
>
> It is not as long as it seems; that's just the comments!  ;-)
> Actually, the code is more straightforward and easier than
> my first try and uses one automatic variable less.
>
> As my other patch depends on this one (not in the sense of
> physical conflicts in the code, but logically), i need to
> return to it when this has gone in.

Ingo,

Much more readable.  I worry a bit about performance, as this is an 
often-called function: why the funny business looking for three non-nils 
then the escaped asterisk?

Seems (it pseudo-C)

   for (cp = buf + pos; cpp = strstr(cp, "\\*"); cp++)
      if ('\0' == cpp[2]) continue;
      ...

would be much clearer and faster.  No?

Thanks,

Kristaps
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to tech+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv