Re: [PATCH 1/6] Introduce sorted-array binary-search function.

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Yann Dirson <ydirson@altern.org> writes:

> +Suffix meanings are as follows:
> +
> +`check`::
> +...
> +* those defining the generic algorithms

Yuck.

All of these feel way overengineered and at the same time too rigid and
brittle.

I have a suspicion that the "convenience" macros that generate many
functions and definitions are the main culprit.  For example, why do all
the functions generated by a "convenience" macro must share the same
MAYBESTATIC?  "binsearch" takes a comparison function pointer, and always
picks the midpoint, but what is the performance implication if we wanted
to use sorted-array.h to rewrite say sha1-lookup.c?  How can an API user
who wants to use declare_sorted_array_insert_checkbook() easily figure out
what other macros fromt this family can be used without getting the same
thing generated twice?  If somebody wanted to have a sorted array in a
struct, it may be tempting to use declare_sorted_array() with an empty
MAYBESTATIC inside struct's field declaration (even when the struct itself
is static---which leaves a queasy feeling, but that is a separate issue),
and the _current_ macro definition of declare_sorted_array() may allow
such a usage work perfectly fine, but how can such an API user be rest
assured it won't break in later revisions of these macros?

In addition, these macros in this patch are almost unreadable, but that
probably is mostly a fault of C's macro, not yours.