Re: RE: [RFC] Fast Parameter Parsing API

On 26 May 2014, at 09:43, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote: > I more or less like the last option, and actually it's similar to Bob > original proposal. > But I see two disadvantages: > 1) It'll relay on macros with variable arguments and it may be not portable > across all compilers. > 2) It uses nested macros and it may make a nightmare for finding source of > some syntax mistake in user code. It could be done without variable arguments, with different syntax. Actually, I’m not sure that syntax can be done *with* them based on how inflexible C99’s variadic macros are. But the following could work, right? ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(2, 4, ZP_ARRAY(input) ZP_LONG(offset) ZP_OPTIONAL ZP_ZVAL(z_length) ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys)) The syntax is ugly, though. It looks like it should be a function and have commas between arguments, but it doesn’t. You could do something like this: ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(2, 4, (ZP_ARRAY(input), ZP_LONG(offset), ZP_OPTIONAL, ZP_ZVAL(z_length), ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys))) That doesn’t require variadic macros as it would exploit the way the C preprocessor works. However, I’m not sure that’s actually an improvement, especially because the ZP_* macros would now look horrible, having to contain garbage at the beginning and end to cancel out the comma. It’s arguably uglier than the one above it. If we go for the “Simpler Variation” proposal and don’t specify counts, then this is feasible: ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS((ZP_ARRAY(input), ZP_LONG(offset), ZP_OPTIONAL, ZP_ZVAL(z_length), ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys))) But again, the doubly-nested () syntax is ugly and probably confusing. I’d rather go with the first option, even if it does look a little too much like a function. With the “Simpler Variation” proposal, it could even look like this: ZEND_PARSE_PARAMETERS(ZP_ARRAY(input) ZP_LONG(offset) ZP_OPTIONAL ZP_ZVAL(z_length) ZP_BOOL(preserve_keys)) Doesn’t that look nice? :) -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/