From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 20:16:06 -0400
Message-ID: <31806.1564618566@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <30240.1564616409@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <11587.1550975080@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20190731225756.nozn3j6lgwhm6qvq@alap3.anarazel.de>
<30240.1564616409@sss.pgh.pa.us>
I wrote:
> One idea is that we could do something like
> foreach_variant(identifier, list_value)
> {
> type *v = (type *) lfirst_variant(identifier);
> ...
> }
> where the "identifier" isn't actually a variable name but just something
> we use to construct the ForEachState variable's name. (The only reason
> we need it is to avoid confusion in cases with nested foreach's.)
On second thought, there seems no strong reason why you should need
to fetch the current value of a foreach-ish loop that's not the most
closely nested one. So forget the dummy identifier, and consider
this straw-man proposal:
#define aforeach(list_value) ...
(I'm thinking "anonymous foreach", but bikeshedding welcome.) This
is just like the current version of foreach(), except it uses a
fixed name for the ForEachState variable and doesn't attempt to
assign to a "cell" variable.
#define aforeach_current() ...
Retrieves the current value of the most-closely-nested aforeach
loop, based on knowing the fixed name of aforeach's loop variable.
This replaces "lfirst(lc)", and we'd also need aforeach_current_int()
and so on for the other variants of lfirst().
So usage would look like, say,
aforeach(my_list)
{
type *my_value = (type *) aforeach_current();
...
}
We'd also want aforeach_delete_current() and aforeach_current_index(),
to provide functionality equivalent to foreach_delete_current() and
foreach_current_index().
These names are a bit long, and maybe we should try to make them
shorter, but more shortness might also mean less clarity.
BTW, I think we could make equivalent macros in the old regime,
which would be a good thing because then it would be possible to
back-patch code using this notation.
Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays
In-Reply-To: <31806.1564618566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox