[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Addressing issues not addressed elsewhere
On Jan 22, 2004, at 10:14 AM, Rich Salz wrote:
> Follow the standard open-modify-close model. Support only one
> document per genxWriter object. That gets rid of genxNew; it would
> also get rid of genxClose if it existed. (See, I told you the current
> model is too complicated. :) Look at unix open syscall; flags specify
> calling sequence.
Here's my thinking. Genx is going to need a table for ascertaining
which codepoints are legal Unicode characters, name characters, and so
on. I had the notion that rather than precompiling this I would cook
it all up in code in a little one-time initializer routine. Thus genx
would have no static data, which would make it easier to compile into,
for example Gnumacs and some embedded systems. Thus you'd rather have
a writer object that you generate multiple documents from. On the
other hand, if you don't mind having a precompiled table, then you're
right, this eliminates one whole set of calls.
Am I going too far here?
> As someone else said, use typed opaque pointers:
> typedef struct genxWriter_struct* genxWriter;
D'oh, that should have gone in the list of no-brainers. Of course.
> Flags include:
> gxoFILE -- next argument is FILE* for output
> gxoNOPROLOG -- don't generate XML prolog
> gxoSTANDALONE -- output "standalone='yes" in prolog
> gxoABORT -- call abort() on any error (for debugging mode)
> gxoFIXAMP -- turn & and < into & and <
> (perhaps gxoNOFIXMAP, I don't care)
I'm not too enthused about these, with the exception of the ABORT
option, which could be a godsend at debugging time.
> genxScanUTF8 is a bad name -- looks to much like sscanf() et al.
> Again, I'd merge that and the Check functions into the single Valid
> predicate.
Yep, should be check not scan.
> How important is single-character output, really? Making them use a
> temporary buffer is not very inconvenient. And if you believe must
> single-char output will be in some kind of loop, anyway...
I'd use it all the time for odd characters by U+XXXX number
Cheers, Tim Bray http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/
|
