Re: [Nmh-workers] nmh internals: argument processing

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Ken,

> Even though it's a bit of hack, I like it.

And most readers can just take how the list of X() work without having
to investigate the gubbins.

> But ... it still somehow sticks in my craw the idea of returning an
> array index.  It just seems wrong to me, somehow.  So I'm going to
> change your second #define for X to be:
> 
> #define X(sw, minchars, id) { sw, minchars, id },

That seems very redundant.  :-)  Like having

    const int foo[] = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9};

since you're cementing the relationship between the enum and array index
through X().  If the two were being haphazardly maintained and at risk
of divergance then I could see the point.

> > The blank line after MARK_SWITCHES's definition is significant.
> 
> How come?  It looks like you could either have the blank line after
> the definition, or simply omit the last \.  Of course, I could be
> missing something :-)

No, you're not.  As you say, it's significant;  either it remains or the
final \ goes.  But doing the latter makes future edits, sorting, and
diffs a pain, so keeping it is better IMHO.

Cheers, Ralph.